God is simple, not complex

[Willamena]

Yeah....that's the problem with words: they are misleading because they operate in the realm of ideas. But reality, or in this instance what I called "Ultimate Reality," is not a concept. I think you understand that.

Funny thing about that, to the non-realist (or idealist) the problem with words is that they operate in the realm of reality.

 

[Willamena]

We have plenty of mythological proof. We see god being defined willy nilly in ancient times in only mythological terms.

God more or less amounts to ones positive and good thoughts one has in his conscious mind, because these primitive people did not think a person could make his own decisions.

If one had many good thoughts and spoke of god he was a prophet plain and simple.

Kings and Emperors defined gods, groups of common men wrote and defined god and later people in power redefined that concept.


What Am I expecting when someone claims their god exist outside of mythology? something outside mythology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But instead what we actually see, is god described a thousand different ways under the premise of 3 major definition changes in the 3 Abrahamic religions, and every last one of those was man made.

But those mythological images are "what the god concept means to them." And I can "prove" that such-and-such is what god means to me by stating it that it's so. You couldn't deny me.

How could any "god" provided to you not fall under confirmation bias?

 

[prometheus11]

Read again what I said. I said the post was idiotic, especially given all the prior information that was, apparently, either not read or simply not understood.
It's more than just an extra keystroke, but a way to designate the ontological distinction between Ultimate Reality, if you will, and (real or imagined) demiurges, like Santa or the FSM. Hinduism, too, make a similar distinction.

Your smarmy attitude comes into play. Don't deny it.

As to the capital letter thing, I stand by my usage as explained in previous posts. Others can deal. Or not.

 

[prometheus11]

That's rhetoric.

Not accepted.

 

[Willamena]

Not accepted.

Why not? Rhetoric is pretty.

 

[prometheus11]

Why not? Rhetoric is pretty.

Not accepted as merely rhetoric.

And, not all that is pretty is worthy.

 

[Willamena]

Not accepted as merely rhetoric.

And, not all that is pretty is worthy.

Since I stated it, I assure you that it was nothing more than rhetoric.

 

[Reflex]

.

As to the capital letter thing, I stand by my usage as explained in previous posts. Others can deal. Or not.

Suits me, but that's like saying you prefer exhibiting willful ignorance to real communication.

 

[prometheus11]

Since I stated it, I assure you that it was nothing more than rhetoric.

Be that as it may, I do not accept it as such.

 

[Willamena]

Be that as it may, I do not accept it as such.

Well, if you won't take the author's word for it, I guess you're set in your ways.

 

[prometheus11]

Suits me, but that's like saying you prefer exhibiting willful ignorance to real communication.

I disagree. I use the upper or lower cases for precise reasons and to aid in the understanding of my intentions.

 

[prometheus11]

Well, if you won't take the author's word for it, I guess you're set in your ways.

Authors often express more or something different than what they intend. Any student of prose knows that.

 

[Reflex]

Take a break, prometheus, You're getting too emotional.

 

[Willamena]

Authors often express more or something different than what they intend. Any student of prose knows that.

I really wasn't expressing any more than rhetoric.

Trust me.

 

[prometheus11]

Take a break, prometheus, You're getting too emotional.

Actually, I'm concerned with about six things right now. This forum is the least interesting of the list.

 

[prometheus11]

I really wasn't expressing any more than rhetoric.

Trust me.

Sure.

 

[outhouse]

But those mythological images are "what the god concept means to them."

And that is all you have to go on.


You only define your concept based on what you believe, the same exact way these people wrote what the believed.

Its all faith based rhetoric that my god is more true then yours.

It has always been a never ending cycle of man defining deities at will


So we only have one certainty, not gods exist outside mythology

 

[Willamena]

And that is all you have to go on.


You only define your concept based on what you believe, the same exact way these people wrote what the believed.

Its all faith based rhetoric that my god is more true then yours.

It has always been a never ending cycle of man defining deities at will


So we only have one certainty, not gods exist outside mythology

So what are you asking proof of?

 

[outhouse]

Authors often express more or something different than what they intend. Any student of prose knows that.

And here is some news for you.

Every book that has ever described a god, has done so in rhetorical prose that factually contains mythology. They were all defined in artistic freedom.

Since the god concept factually evolved, one cannot even begin to debate this without talking about a time period.

If they say today! then they have to state which god of many do they chose to debate?

Belief in which god is highly dependent and where a person is geographically born.

'They have no where to turn, because the only have faith, and nothing at all that promotes the concept exist outside mythology with any credibility what so ever.


At least we have factual evidence of a mythological construct.

 

[outhouse]

So what are you asking proof of?

moving goal post?