Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@Meander_Z
I couldn't quote you. However, I'll try to make this short. I went over all the posts again before the one you sent me. My points:
1. You define god as a concept. Many people do not believe god as a concept. In the OP, it asks if you can force yourself to believe in god (if you don't) and if you don't believe in god, can you force yourself to believe.
If you are talking about concepts, I'd assume yes, you can force yourself to believe in the concept once introduced as mentioned (please take my word for it). If you are taught that how to count, of course you will believe the concept of two given the demonstration.
2. In this case, many believers believe god to be an object (or person/entity/noun) not a concept.
Now if god is a concept, say love then if someone is taught about this concept, then one can believe in it. However, that is not the case for everyone.
3. For example, if I had not moved here, I would never have had the anyone else's concept of god nor would I have owned a bible, quran, or anything of that nature. God would have been completely a foreign language to me.
Now that I know jesus, as spirit/noun not concept via the Eucharist/physical means, it is no longer a concept it's (or he, rather) is an actual object/person. So, since Catholic's believe jesus is god, god is no longer a concept, he is an actual person.
4. You are specifically talking about some definitions of god but not the definitions that refer to god as an actual entity not a concept. That is what I am talking about. I agree with you if we are talking about concepts but I assume the OP was more referring to an actual entity not a god-concept.
5. I can see this as one definition. How would you describe or talk about god in a general or universal way to which we both have the same definition and, hence, referring to the same subject in our conversation. If I believe god is life and you believe god is "aspect of experience that can't be explained in a concrete way" and I say that life isn't that complex. We make it complex but "god" does not need to be as complex as people make it.
If god is an object, then of course I can dance around definitions but that won't change what the object is; but, since god is a concept, it has many definitions but my point at the core, it's not that complicated.
6. When I say "god is like a chair" I mean, the word god is the word chair and the concrete object of what this word god/chair is based on is the objects (or religious culture and language) to which is shaped for us to sit on. I'm talking about the word rather than the chair itself. But back to my original point, because god is a word that labels an entity not a concept in and of itself, if we took the word god out and look at the core, we'd see concrete experiences, rituals, and other things that make up what we call god or the result of god.
I'm just using the word god because that's what we label our experiences from life that, as said above, can't be explained in a concrete way. I just reword it and use the word life instead. It makes more sense than having a word (like the word 2) when the pencils are there regardless if a person can count and describe it or not.
It is useful, as in many many posts back you said; but, my point is that not all believers see god as a concept/a 2. Going off that point, what you are saying doesn't mirror how believers see god. Which, as a result, makes this kind of going off track of the OP but....
7. I think you are discussing god and your explanations as if god is a concept. While I'm going by what I assume the OP is saying, god as an object/person/entity. What you're saying makes sense; it's just, I'm going off a different perspective.
8. But if I kept with god as a concept, I feel that that concept would need to be based off of something. Two is meaningless as you said the word "Zeitgeist" is meaningless, but in my words, until you describe what it means, it will mean nothing.
That begs the question, if you don't know anything about this word nor have any other person explain it to you, how is this word useful to you at all?
Kind of like a baby playing with a foreign object. You can pick it up, throw it around, and all of that but it doesn't become useful unless taught the "proper" (if there is such a thing) way how to use the object. God/entity is the same way. God as a concept, though, if one hasn't been introduced to what the concept means, the word god means nothing. I don't see how it can be useful.
And with the OP, if god is a concept, I don't see how one can be forced to believe it or not believe it because it is a meaningless word.
9.
It's based on what many believers see god as. Life isn't an object; so, I'm not talking about my views about god. It would probably similar to how you see god given life and how you define god are both concepts.
10. But, if I were to think of something I do believe that's similar is spirit. It's not a concept, it's actual energy of a person once they have died. Their spirit or soul, I guess you can say, lives on. We feel it and sense it and know the presence of spirits when they are around us. It's not a concept as in how you see god but an actual part of life that many people don't look into cause they are so focused on what they can see they don't ponder about things beyond "the Eucharist" (for example) and what they cannot see.
11.
The same way you define the concept of Love without it being based on something concrete.
Love is based on something concrete. It is defined by the psychological, psychiological, and environmental (dealign with people as well as environment) that we interpret in a way that pleases us more than just "I like chocolate." It tells the extent of how we like something based on what we feel and it is concrete because you can see these results and neurons act in different ways depending on how someone relates to an object or person.
Also, love is based on how we interpret how other people(s) treat us. Like if my family treated me like X in my culture and native language, I interpret that as love. So that's based on concrete.
God/life is based on something concrete. It is a combination of everything and everyone that makes things "go." It's not a force. It's plain energy. Something that can be tested. Babies that form and plants that grow.
God/concept how you describe it, if it is like love not based on something concrete, that is why I ask the question of how you define god (you don't have to repeat; rhetorical) because if it isn't based on something (like our naming 2 is based on what we are counting. It means nothing otherwise), then it's a useless word. It has to be applied to something or someone in a concrete way (jesus to a protestant, for example or Eucharist to a Catholic), in order for it to be useful. If god is just a concept. It's useless. I don't see how one can use the word unless they make up their own definitions or use it in poetry, may be giving imaginative concrete meaning to an abstract word.
But then, my point is, not all people see god as a concept.
I think this pretty much wraps up your whole point and then some. Where I am coming from is, god is not a concept to believers and how the OP is configured, I don't think the OP wanted us to answer it in that light given concepts are more "flexible" in definition than something concrete. There are many types of love but trying to describe a chair by saying it's a cloud is a different story.
I couldn't quote you. However, I'll try to make this short. I went over all the posts again before the one you sent me. My points:
1. You define god as a concept. Many people do not believe god as a concept. In the OP, it asks if you can force yourself to believe in god (if you don't) and if you don't believe in god, can you force yourself to believe.
If you are talking about concepts, I'd assume yes, you can force yourself to believe in the concept once introduced as mentioned (please take my word for it). If you are taught that how to count, of course you will believe the concept of two given the demonstration.
2. In this case, many believers believe god to be an object (or person/entity/noun) not a concept.
Now if god is a concept, say love then if someone is taught about this concept, then one can believe in it. However, that is not the case for everyone.
3. For example, if I had not moved here, I would never have had the anyone else's concept of god nor would I have owned a bible, quran, or anything of that nature. God would have been completely a foreign language to me.
Now that I know jesus, as spirit/noun not concept via the Eucharist/physical means, it is no longer a concept it's (or he, rather) is an actual object/person. So, since Catholic's believe jesus is god, god is no longer a concept, he is an actual person.
4. You are specifically talking about some definitions of god but not the definitions that refer to god as an actual entity not a concept. That is what I am talking about. I agree with you if we are talking about concepts but I assume the OP was more referring to an actual entity not a god-concept.
5. I can see this as one definition. How would you describe or talk about god in a general or universal way to which we both have the same definition and, hence, referring to the same subject in our conversation. If I believe god is life and you believe god is "aspect of experience that can't be explained in a concrete way" and I say that life isn't that complex. We make it complex but "god" does not need to be as complex as people make it.
If god is an object, then of course I can dance around definitions but that won't change what the object is; but, since god is a concept, it has many definitions but my point at the core, it's not that complicated.
6. When I say "god is like a chair" I mean, the word god is the word chair and the concrete object of what this word god/chair is based on is the objects (or religious culture and language) to which is shaped for us to sit on. I'm talking about the word rather than the chair itself. But back to my original point, because god is a word that labels an entity not a concept in and of itself, if we took the word god out and look at the core, we'd see concrete experiences, rituals, and other things that make up what we call god or the result of god.
I'm just using the word god because that's what we label our experiences from life that, as said above, can't be explained in a concrete way. I just reword it and use the word life instead. It makes more sense than having a word (like the word 2) when the pencils are there regardless if a person can count and describe it or not.
It is useful, as in many many posts back you said; but, my point is that not all believers see god as a concept/a 2. Going off that point, what you are saying doesn't mirror how believers see god. Which, as a result, makes this kind of going off track of the OP but....
7. I think you are discussing god and your explanations as if god is a concept. While I'm going by what I assume the OP is saying, god as an object/person/entity. What you're saying makes sense; it's just, I'm going off a different perspective.
8. But if I kept with god as a concept, I feel that that concept would need to be based off of something. Two is meaningless as you said the word "Zeitgeist" is meaningless, but in my words, until you describe what it means, it will mean nothing.
That begs the question, if you don't know anything about this word nor have any other person explain it to you, how is this word useful to you at all?
Kind of like a baby playing with a foreign object. You can pick it up, throw it around, and all of that but it doesn't become useful unless taught the "proper" (if there is such a thing) way how to use the object. God/entity is the same way. God as a concept, though, if one hasn't been introduced to what the concept means, the word god means nothing. I don't see how it can be useful.
And with the OP, if god is a concept, I don't see how one can be forced to believe it or not believe it because it is a meaningless word.
9.
"I can't even begin to visualize what you think you are talking about when you say that God can be an object."
It's based on what many believers see god as. Life isn't an object; so, I'm not talking about my views about god. It would probably similar to how you see god given life and how you define god are both concepts.
10. But, if I were to think of something I do believe that's similar is spirit. It's not a concept, it's actual energy of a person once they have died. Their spirit or soul, I guess you can say, lives on. We feel it and sense it and know the presence of spirits when they are around us. It's not a concept as in how you see god but an actual part of life that many people don't look into cause they are so focused on what they can see they don't ponder about things beyond "the Eucharist" (for example) and what they cannot see.
11.
The same way you define the concept of Love without it being based on something concrete.
Love is based on something concrete. It is defined by the psychological, psychiological, and environmental (dealign with people as well as environment) that we interpret in a way that pleases us more than just "I like chocolate." It tells the extent of how we like something based on what we feel and it is concrete because you can see these results and neurons act in different ways depending on how someone relates to an object or person.
Also, love is based on how we interpret how other people(s) treat us. Like if my family treated me like X in my culture and native language, I interpret that as love. So that's based on concrete.
God/life is based on something concrete. It is a combination of everything and everyone that makes things "go." It's not a force. It's plain energy. Something that can be tested. Babies that form and plants that grow.
God/concept how you describe it, if it is like love not based on something concrete, that is why I ask the question of how you define god (you don't have to repeat; rhetorical) because if it isn't based on something (like our naming 2 is based on what we are counting. It means nothing otherwise), then it's a useless word. It has to be applied to something or someone in a concrete way (jesus to a protestant, for example or Eucharist to a Catholic), in order for it to be useful. If god is just a concept. It's useless. I don't see how one can use the word unless they make up their own definitions or use it in poetry, may be giving imaginative concrete meaning to an abstract word.
But then, my point is, not all people see god as a concept.
I think this pretty much wraps up your whole point and then some. Where I am coming from is, god is not a concept to believers and how the OP is configured, I don't think the OP wanted us to answer it in that light given concepts are more "flexible" in definition than something concrete. There are many types of love but trying to describe a chair by saying it's a cloud is a different story.
- I'm referring to god as an object since many believers focus on the relationship between concept/god (if you like) and result as one. There is no separation between to. But because it's so personally, people rather referr to god as an object (what the concept is based on) rather than the concept itself. Which is important? Depends on the person.
- God is a useless word just as the number two. It has to have something concrete to make sense out of what it is or who it is. Like the Zeig... word. It means nothing unless you give me a explanation of how to use it or who it is.
- Can't remember my other points but that's the jist of it.
