Don Penguinoini
Modi.
God created us so he is imposrtant. God is in line with parents. They are creator to us, so we look up to him/her for help and guidance to things which confuse us. i think.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
couldn't the two, "God" and "certainty" be synonymous?
God created us so he is imposrtant. God is in line with parents. They are creator to us, so we look up to him/her for help and guidance to things which confuse us. i think.
Maybe this could be a point that proves the existence of god. Just maybe.
Frubals. You gave me a good laugh from thatIt's a plain fact.
The concept of GOD is invaulable to both the intellect and the heart as a means and an end to comprehension of what is "unknown" or "unknowable".
That is true, but some would tell you that there is no "outside" to begin with regardless of what our humble physical senses tell us.we certainly respond to that meaningfulness when we embrace someone else, experience something beautiful, such things. i believe we are responding to something both within and outside of ourselves.
I don't know about that Dopp. *giggles* To me, it is merely an intellectual construct that we use much like a stepping stone. At a certain stage of development one simply begins to blaze their own trails and leaves the limited construct of the accepted path behind.doppelgänger;964348 said:Right on, Conor. "God" is not knowing. :yes:
How little I know must explain omnipresence...doppelgänger;964348 said:"God" is not knowing. :yes:
Where there is thirst there must be something that satisfies that thirst. Yes. But is the thirst for "God" or is the thirst for "certainty"? After all, a sugary sweet Dr. Pepper will satiate your "thirst", too . . . even though it's eventually going to contribute to dehydrating you.
You have hit upon a fine parable and I don't even think you know. Where there is thirst there is water, although there is nothing to stop other liquid from being there as well. Everybody knows that in true thirst only water is properly satisfying. Everything else pales in comparison to thirst quenching (yes even the powerful gatorade), because it is water that we are composed of, so it makes sense tha water is the ultimate quencher of thirst.
I liken this thristy person to one seeking god. He travels along to see a whole row for as far as he can see of these dr peppers. He greedily drinks them down, figuring that they will help him, they may not be water but they are liquids. Not realizing that his demise may come sooner, because the dr pepper, while good, and cold, and sweet, is harming him and killing him. His thirst will be quenched but for a little while before he needs another. All the while oblivious to what real harm he is placing himself. His search for water will not be so urgent in his mind, because he believes the soda can hold him over. He is alive yes, but in what state? Is he better off then the man who was also desperately seeking water, passed the soda because he knew it was harmful to be sidetracked by it, and eventually finds his water? The one with the water will truly be satiated, and this satisfaction lasts longer. It is also life giving. The one with the soda will introduce himself to new problems while not perceiving the soda as a culprit. How unfortunate.
But I'm thinking Dopp is comparing God to the Dr. Pepper here, and what we really want is...to be.
Maybe what we crave is the un-cola.
I like this FVM, and I think that we thrist for God and substitute other things. But I'm thinking Dopp is comparing God to the Dr. Pepper here, and what we really want is...to be.
Maybe what we crave is the un-cola.
One wonders whether you believe that to be a true statement.doppelgänger;964208 said:In ontology, it is little more than worthless ornamentation. It's a word from deductive logic and epistemology frequently used to gloss over the problem of induction where the scientific method is carelessly understood or applied.
One wonders whether you believe that to be a true statement.
Do you use epistemology in the sense of 'knowledge of knowing' or 'theory of knowledge?'doppelgänger;964733 said:Epistemologically true?
doppelgänger;964330 said:Certainly. But then "God" represents a "god-experience" - a perceived and interpreted phenomenon and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with some thing "existing" in the "out there," right?
Do you think there is a difference between belief in "God" and belief in believing in "God" ?
If so, what difference?