Others can't see God exactly as you do.

[PureX]

Can you explain what the third option is?

There is no "second" option. There is only existence. Non-existence is a purely mental abstraction created by the way our brains cognate information (compare/contrast). The truth is 'what is', and there is no 'what isn't'. "What isn't" is an incoherent abstraction that our brain invented because they need contrast to function.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, some theists close the door on non-believers to shut them out, only to realize they are now locked in a prison.

I have watched many theists attitude toward non-believers particularly atheists and agnostics. Their arguments are riff with stereotyping, accusations that do not reflect their beliefs, and in general false information.

On the extreme end science is accused of being atheistic,

 

[PureX]

If you use the word "God" in very general sense then it applies to more people. The more specific a person defines and describes their God the fewer that will agree. There are thousands of gods in human history. And arguably many more depending on what individual believers want their god to be.

This is pretty much true of everything, though. We humans are really very much alike, and yet at the same time we are all quite unique. So of course we will find this same dichotomy within a great many human characteristics and eperiences, including theism. Or atheism.

Only because God doesn't correspond to anything that can be compared. Even religious texts are pretty vague.

All that stuff is just the result of people's unique, yet universal experience of "God". It's no different than anything else. Five thousand people go to a rock concert, and every one of them has both the same experience, and their own unique experience, simultaneously. No one is foolish enough to demand to know "which is it?". Or to claim that the rock concert didn't happen because no one agrees on exactly what happened there.

From the human perspective, understanding the truth of anything happens relative to the individual perspective, criteria, and bias. There is no 'one right' rock concert. Or 'one right' anything. And if there were, no one person will ever have experienced it.

Of course you mean a personal, subjective truth, not truth in the sense that it conforms to what is true and real. That is why God is such a diverse belief.

We have no access to that presumed truth. That truth happens in all dimensions. We do not.

 

[viole]

ou can't understand God without actively seeking God first.

True. And I am really touched by that wisdom.
I had a discussion with a good friend of mine from Africa, and he confirmed to me that he could not have possibly have found God, namely the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, without having actively sought for Him.
That was so touching and emotionally inspiring that it almost caused me to go to my knees, and swear eternal allegiance to the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

ou can't understand God without actively seeking God first.

True. And I am really touched by that wisdom.
I had a discussion with a good friend of mine from Africa, and he confirmed to me that he could not have possibly have found God, namely the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, without having actively sought for Him.
That was so touching and emotionally inspiring that it almost caused me to go to my knees, and swear eternal allegiance to the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

Yet many people want certainty and truth where they can't really have it.

Amen, brother!
Some of them chase that certainty through their idolization of religion, while others chase that certainty through their idolization of science. But neither of these endeavors can give them what God has denied us all: certainty. And the more certain we think we are, the more crazy and dishonest we become.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is no "second" option. There is only existence. Non-existence is a purely mental abstraction created by the way our brains cognate information (compare/contrast). The truth is 'what is', and there is no 'what isn't'. "What isn't" is an incoherent abstraction that our brain invented because they need contrast to function.

How is it incoherent? It seems like it is a necessary idea. Without it, how do we understand that leprechauns do not exist? Non existence is a statement of truth. Things can only exist or not exist.

 

[ChristineM]

not just an emotion christine. it's bigger than that. it's what drives evolution in the physical world. its what drives your relationships that you are so passionate about

No emotion does not drive evolution. Environment and mutation drives evolution.

Emotion drives relationships,

 

[PureX]

How is it incoherent? It seems like it is a necessary idea. Without it, how do we understand that leprechauns do not exist?

Leprechauns do exist, clearly, or we wouldn't know what the word is referring to. They just don't exist as physical life forms on this planet (that we know of). Everything "exists". The question is what does presuming to know that mean? "Exists", how? Because nothing can "not exist". Non-existence can't exist, by it's own design.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Leprechauns do exist, clearly, or we wouldn't know what the word is referring to. They just don't exist as physical life forms on this planet (that we know of). Everything "exists". The question is what does presuming to know that mean? "Exists", how? Because nothing can "not exist". Non-existence can't exist, by it's own design.

So it is a definition thing then. Sure if you define exist as anything you can think up exists in your mind then ok. But that is not very useful. Philosophical discussions about whether an idea is real or not is interesting but not very useful. The idea that things do not exist outside a mind is a useful and necessary idea when having conversations about determining truth. I think you know this.

 

[PureX]

So it is a definition thing then.

No, it's a logic thing. Non-existence can't exist. It can't be a state, or a thing. It can only be an idea. So every "thing" exists. But not every "thing" exists in the same way.

Sure if you define exist as anything you can think up exists in your mind then ok.

I'm not defining it. It is defining itself. The term "existence" by design refers to 'all that is'. And that leaves nothing out. Including ideas. Even "incorrect" ideas, and ideas that defy the limits of physicality.

But that is not very useful.

Truth is not defined by it's functionality. Although we humans confuse and conflate these two aspects of being, constantly. And it's understandable, since functionality is life and death for us, while the truth, from our perspective, is always relative and never certain. So it's no surprise that we'd tend to subvert that latter in favor of the former.

Philosophical discussions about whether an idea is real or not is interesting but not very useful.

The way they are useful is that they get folks like you to be a little bit skeptical of their own reality paradigms. That may be annoying and uncomfortable, but in the end, it's both necessary and helpful. Because our certainty, as much as we may want it and love it, is crazy-food. Also, philosophy is about trying to understand the truth of things, while science is about trying to understand the functionality of things. Truth is not functionality, and functionality is not truth. You say "philosophy is not useful". Maybe not so much, as it's not about functionality. But it's truthful.

The idea that things do not exist outside a mind is a useful and necessary idea when having conversations about determining truth. I think you know this.

THAT, is a good example of 'crazy-food'. Because existence has no "inside" or "outside". The idea of a tree is as real as the tree. In fact, neither can exist beyond being 'just phenomena" from the human perspective, without the other.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The truth bites and stings.
People tend to run from it

On the contrary, you need not fear the truth. It doesn’t bite;

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all
ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
- John Keats

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free.”
- John 8:32

 

[Audie]

On the contrary, you need not fear the truth. It doesn’t bite;

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all
ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
- John Keats

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make ye free.”
- John 8:32

It kinda stings the bitter clingers

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, it's a logic thing. Non-existence can't exist. It can't be a state, or a thing. It can only be an idea. So every "thing" exists. But not every "thing" exists in the same way.

I agree. What I don't agree with is not being able to make a distinction between ideas existing and things existing that are "real" or not just an idea. This is useful and I would say necessary to communicate.

I'm not defining it. It is defining itself. The term "existence" by design refers to 'all that is'. And that leaves nothing out. Including ideas. Even "incorrect" ideas, and ideas that defy the limits of physicality.

Look in the dictionary. The word exists has different common usages. We use exist to differentiate between ideas and things that are not ideas.

Truth is not defined by it's functionality. Although we humans confuse and conflate these two aspects of being, constantly. And it's understandable, since functionality is life and death for us, while the truth, from our perspective, is always relative and never certain. So it's no surprise that we'd tend to subvert that latter in favor of the former.

I never said truth was defined by functionality.

The way they are useful is that they get folks like you to be a little bit skeptical of their own reality paradigms. That may be annoying and uncomfortable, but in the end, it's both necessary and helpful. Because our certainty, as much as we may want it and love it, is crazy-food.

I never said we could be certain of anything. I don't think we can attain 100% certainty.

Also, philosophy is about trying to understand the truth of things, while science is about trying to understand the functionality of things. Truth is not functionality, and functionality is not truth.

How something functions is something that is true about it.

You say "philosophy is not useful".

I never said this.

Maybe not so much, as it's not about functionality. But it's truthful.
THAT, is a good example of 'crazy-food'. Because existence has no "inside" or "outside". The idea of a tree is as real as the tree. In fact, neither can exist beyond being 'just phenomena" from the human perspective, without the other.

The idea of a tree and a tree are both real but not in the same way. And if you talk about an idea of a tree the same way as a tree, communication becomes confused. All I am saying is that when we talk about things as existing and not existing we are differentiating between ideas and things that are not just ideas. We do this everyday, all the time.

 

[F1fan]

Amen, brother!
Some of them chase that certainty through their idolization of religion, while others chase that certainty through their idolization of science.

I'm not aware of anyone idolizing science.

But neither of these endeavors can give them what God has denied us all: certainty. And the more certain we think we are, the more crazy and dishonest we become.

Well we humans can be certain of many things. This is what reason offers us. The trouble starts when humans can't get answers they seek but are certain they found it, and then act on it against others.

 

[PureX]

I agree. What I don't agree with is not being able to make a distinction between ideas existing and things existing that are "real" or not just an idea. This is useful and I would say necessary to communicate.

Lying is also useful and sometimes even necessary to communicate. Look at it this way, without ideas, "existence" doesn't exist. Because existence, itself, is an idea that we generate in our minds from the sea of otherwise undifferentiated and meaningless phenomena in which we live. Without ideas, that sea remains just a sea of meaningless phenomena. We can't even experience being here without ideation. There's no "reality" for us without it. Perception IS conception.

I never said we could be certain of anything. I don't think we can attain 100% certainty.

All certainty is delusion. The best we humans can do is extrapolate a reasonable probability. We need to learn to be honest about this, and stop pretending that we are "almost 100% certain". Certainty in any percentage is delusion. Establishing probability and allowing it to remain probability helps to keep us more honest and sane.

How something functions is something that is true about it.

But it is not the "truth of that thing". How an automobile functions is not the truth of the automobile. How my body functions is not the truth of me. Science does not discover the truth of anything. It only discovers the physical functionality. To discover the truth of things, we need to employ philosophy, art, and even religion.

The idea of a tree and a tree are both real but not in the same way. And if you talk about an idea of a tree the same way as a tree, communication becomes confused.

I agree. When people state that "God is real", they have as yet said nothing. Because the question is; "what God is real in what ways?" Clearly God is real, or we couldn't be discussing it. But reality encompasses a great many ideas, things, and states, and circumstances. In fact, it encompasses EVERYTHING. So we need to learn to stop being so cryptic, and start being more articulate and honest about what we proclaim to others if we want anyone else to understand us.

 

[PureX]

I'm not aware of anyone idolizing science.

That should worry you.

Well we humans can be certain of many things. This is what reason offers us. The trouble starts when humans can't get answers they seek but are certain they found it, and then act on it against others.

Human certainty is delusion. The best we can ever do is extrapolate probability. "Certainty", in whatever degree, is not logically possible for us, and is therefor a lie. And lies that we believe, ourselves, are called delusions. People who believe that science uncovers the truth of things are delusional. All science uncovers is how things function. And how a thing functions is not the truth of that thing. Yet many refuse to accept this. Instead, they make science a false idol, and pretend it's the fountain of truth for mankind.

I hope you are not one of these.

 

[Clara Tea]

When someone ask, tell me about the God you believe in...and you do.

They are not going to see God the way you do. Because telling about a God, is not the same as having an understanding by the one who listen to you.

They listen to you, then they have to study it for them selves to gain the wisdom you have gained.

You can't understand God without actively seeking God first.

Clara Tea's opinion:

It is understandable that describing a large and complex entity is like three blind men describing an elephant (rope, tree, hose....depending on which part they touched).

Understanding (that is, wisdom) grows with discussion. Socrates taught us that. The more we know, the more we understand, and the more we are capable of understanding.

This means that we can teach "some" of our understanding of God to others (and they can teach us).

Wisdom, Socrates said, is difficult to grasp the first time. Reality is rejected the first time that we hear it (from the Allegory of the Cave of Socrates....about a person tied inside a cave, unable to see outside, so his only view of the world is shadows, then when he is turned around and sees the world as it really is, he can't believe it....the colors...etc.). It takes time to absorb knowledge and accept it.

The fact that there are so many atheists in this forum shouldn't upset theists. The only way that the atheists could be turned to theists is by exposing them to the bible, and this is where it is all possible.

Sadly, the theoretical purpose of religion (to make us better) is not a reality. Theoretically, we are supposed to reject war, but Satan's fear (from terrorists) caused the US to make war on peaceful nations. Satan's greed caused the US to try to cheat Niger and take their resources, when the W. Bush administration tried to get Wilson to tell lies, and when he wouldn't lie to start a war against a peaceful nation, the W. Bush administration outted his CIA wife, Valery Plame. So, warmongers will use Satan's fear and greed to start wars (this is why it is so easy to spot Satan in a crowded room....he's the one with the wars and bloodshed.

It is a cold world out there, with homeless people shoved out of their niches, and all of their belongings tossed into trash bins. They are herded far from can recycling places so their income is reduced, and they are forced to take public food. What happened to all of the good hearts of America? I drove through downtown Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, and I saw tent cities lining the streets (I think that I was close to Skid row). Skid Row is a tiny part of the city (about 5,000 people in a city of 10,000,000, and a state of 35,000,000). Yet, it has more homeless people than anywhere else. It is a place where people have given up.

Why talk about this in a religious forum? Because religion and morality are closely linked. If we are to follow the teachings of Jesus, it doesn't really matter who begat whom (so genesis is not a very important part of the bible), but the parts of the bible that teach us how to get along with each other and tend to the poor and sick and hungry, are the parts that are most important in our daily lives.

How, then, did we convert the religions that we know so well, and love so much, into instruments of war and destruction? How did we turn our nation into a fighting machine, and make it impossible for anyone to lead if they don't work hard for gun rights? Christ isn't supposed to be about guns. The bible doesn't really address abortion much. Yet, look at all that is said about it.

The various aspects of God and morality are highly complex and impact our daily lives. Even the way in which we interact with other world powers affects (in a big way) the way we get along in the future. Will we allow dictatorships merge with their former parts and grow to be killing machines? Are we taken in by political leaders who wear crosses and tout religion? We must view people by their actions, not their crosses. Take Putin, for example. Oddly, Putin is Christian, yet killing a lot of people in Ukraine (and losing soldiers of his own).

The bible is an active guide in our daily lives (not some obscure tidbit of history....though it does contain a lot of history, as well).

 

[Clara Tea]

Lying is also useful and sometimes even necessary to communicate. Look at it this way, without ideas, "existence" doesn't exist. Because existence, itself, is an idea that we generate in our minds from the sea of otherwise undifferentiated and meaningless phenomena in which we live. Without ideas, that sea remains just a sea of meaningless phenomena. We can't even experience being here without ideation. There's no "reality" for us without it. Perception IS conception.
All certainty is delusion. The best we humans can do is extrapolate a reasonable probability. We need to learn to be honest about this, and stop pretending that we are "almost 100% certain". Certainty in any percentage is delusion. Establishing probability and allowing it to remain probability helps to keep us more honest and sane.
But it is not the "truth of that thing". How an automobile functions is not the truth of the automobile. How my body functions is not the truth of me. Science does not discover the truth of anything. It only discovers the physical functionality. To discover the truth of things, we need to employ philosophy, art, and even religion.
I agree. When people state that "God is real", they have as yet said nothing. Because the question is; "what God is real in what ways?" Clearly God is real, or we couldn't be discussing it. But reality encompasses a great many ideas, things, and states, and circumstances. In fact, it encompasses EVERYTHING. So we need to learn to stop being so cryptic, and start being more articulate and honest about what we proclaim to others if we want anyone else to understand us.

Like many women, Mary conceived Jesus, and might not even have perceived God.

Are you certain that we need more uncertainty?

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no "second" option. There is only existence. Non-existence is a purely mental abstraction created by the way our brains cognate information (compare/contrast). The truth is 'what is', and there is no 'what isn't'. "What isn't" is an incoherent abstraction that our brain invented because they need contrast to function.

Of course I do not agree with the simplicity of the 'either or' statement

Science remains the best estimation of as 'what is' is our progressive scientific knowledge of the nature of our physical existence.

The bold is also potentially describes the motivation for the contradictory diversity of human religions and beliefs, and hints at reason for our beliefs.The religions and beliefs beyond what 'potential what is objectively' can possibly be explained by the human nature of survival at the tribal level of the need for a sense of identity and belonging, and the need for tribal hierarchy extending to the potentially spiritual ancestor and Creation 'Source.'.

This does not negate the possibility of a 'Source' some call God and a relationship between the 'Source' and humanity and Creation, but it brings seriously to question the validity of the claims of any one the many conflicting religions and beliefs in human history. Exclusive belief in any religion or belief becomes not only illogical and irrational, but seriously in conflict of what we can know with relative confidence of 'What is.'