The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

[Sanmario]

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

 

[Kemosloby]

My concept of God is something far greater than my concept of God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Another word for life. The actual air you breathe, the energy that keeps you ticking, the water which you came from, the earth which you go back to, and all the above. It's your goals, your motivation, your passions, and your relation to yourself and environment. It is objective and it's conceptual.

Many religions give their conception of god but when thinking of god like thinking about our nose, we can see god is a combination of our culture, language, interaction with others, our need for an other, psychological, and sociological needs.

Even making the idea of god a person or noun that can do things like a person can is a cultural conception of god that vary from religion to religion. The objective nature of god is that god IS life. You can't disprove the existence of life regardless if we debate on whether that spark is energy, consciousness, or holy spirit.

 

[George-ananda]

My concept of God has evolved from dualist (God and creation are two) to non-dualist (God and creation are not-two). I see God as the spark of consciousness that animates all living things (and it is all One source called God/Brahman).

 

[Brickjectivity]

The primary attribute of God is invisibility, undetectability. It is a denial that God can be identified with any gods or items such as the god of time, war, love etc. Belief in God is a form of atheism except that God has some positive attributes that are determined through observing the world or perhaps through intuition. The invisibility, the inaccessibility make God impossible to prove exists. You cannot point to the Nile and say "Aha see there is a god." or point to Physics and declare "See! It proves God." The belief God exists is the difference between pure atheism and theism.

 

[Sanmario]

Thanks a lot for your ideas.

And please let us think together as to concur on our ideas, so that we will get somewhere in augmenting common knowledge, instead of eventually leaving this thread without learning anything new of common knowledge.

Is there something you want me to concur with you about, in the formulation of the concept of God?

So, when you write again, please tell me what you want me to concur with you about, in re the concept of God.

From my part, I like to propose to you all who have posted so far and also others who think of posting in this thread, that we determine what is the most important thing with being God, from the part of people like myself.

Forgive me, but I judge an entity to be important on what he has done, and wherefore the most important entity must be one that has created and is operating the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Can you concur with me on the preceding paragraph?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

I'd agree with that general concept, intelligent, purposeful creator of the universe and life, with man as the primary beneficiary of that creation.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Guy, thanks for your concurrence:

"I'd agree with that general concept, intelligent, purposeful creator of the universe and life, with man as the primary beneficiary of that creation."

In other words, [from me] "God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Of course, we have to examine whether the concept we concur on, does it have intrinsic coherency and consistency?

I don't see any components in it that are not compatible among themselves, do you?

For if there is one component that is contrary to another component, then the whole concept is not endowed with intrinsic coherency and consistency.

So, at this point, we will invite atheist thinkers here to join us to search for an entity in the objective realm of existence outside and independent of our mind, outside of concepts in our mind, but corresponding to the concept we have of God, as described thus:

[From you] "I'd agree with that general concept, intelligent, purposeful creator of the universe and life, with man as the primary beneficiary of that creation."

[From me] "God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Dear atheist thinkers in this forum, what do you say, shall we proceed to the objectival realm of things to search for evidence of such an entity, corresponding to the concept of God concurred on by Guy and me?

 

[Ekleipsis]

Well, in the Bible, God is usually hidden, except to those deemed " worthy "

" There will be no visible signs (of my return) "
" There will be signs in the sky "

But to be honest, I think the entire premise of man proving God's existence is faulty

I would think only God could prove God is real

So, if you wanted to take the Bible's statements as true, regarding the claims that " every knee will bow and every tongue confess ", in order for that to be true across the board ( As in all people ), then you would have to posit how there would be any doubt left in the " divinity " of the Bible itself

..because in order for the Bible's claims to be true in that respect, you couldn't have a scenario where all people " confess and bow " and then X amount of those people still doubt that the Bible is somehow " divine "

So then by extension, I would wager that if Jesus / God is real, than it would be the sole responsibility of the deity to defend the legitimacy of his own supposed work ( the Bible )

If and when he ever shows up, of course

If the Bible is " The Word " and Jesus is supposed to be " The Word ", then I would think only he could validate his own existence

Otherwise, as it seems, nobody has made any headway after all this time

 

[EtuMalku]

For the majority of Luciferians and Mercuræns there is no other god than one's higher Self. This has been called the GodSelf and exists outside of the dualism and illusions of the objective universe. It is the True, Platonic First Form of each of us and that is the only God we will come to know . . . Self.

 

[Sanmario]

I like to abstain from any revelations from God, as in the three monotheistic religions of Christianity and Islam and Judaism.

We will just employ our reason on the concept of God and using the concept of God which we concur on, we will go forth into the realm of objects to search for evidence to the existence of God as per our concurred on concept of God.

Here is again my concept of God:

"God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Please everyone, present your concept of God if you do not accept my concept of God.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Etu, I see you are into what I might call misty writing, not grounded on reason and observation and thus intelligent conclusion.

It makes you feell what, mystical, errh, mist-ical?

This thread is on:

The object and concept of God and the existence of God.
____________

From: Sanmario


There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

#1 Saturday at 4:23 AM
​

For the majority of Luciferians and Mercuræns there is no other god than one's higher Self. This has been called the GodSelf and exists outside of the dualism and illusions of the objective universe. It is the True, Platonic First Form of each of us and that is the only God we will come to know . . . Self.

 

[EtuMalku]

Dear Etu, I see you are into what I might call misty writing, not grounded on reason and observation and thus intelligent conclusion.

It makes you feell what, mystical, errh, mist-ical?

This thread is on:

The object and concept of God and the existence of God.
____________

From: Sanmario


There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

#1 Saturday at 4:23 AM
​

You lost me with this misty, mystical, mistical stuff. What are you trying to say?

If you intended this thread only for theist's you should have stated that or placed it in the appropriate forum.

 

[Sanmario]

No, I am not into talking only with theists, in fact I love to talk with atheists; but when theists talk to me I will also gladly talk with them.

I just love to exchange thoughts with atheists, in order to learn from them how to think better, on the issue of God exists or not.

Are you an atheist, or what?

Do you have a concept of God?

If I may, supposing you are an atheist, I read that atheists maintain that there is no evidence for God existing; is that also your position?

The way I observe with atheists is that they are ever very cautious with saying anything at all definitively.

Here, I will ask you, do you have at all any concept of God, as you deny God to exist (supposing of course that you are an atheist), you must have some concept of God.

Hope to read your reaction to this post from me.

 

[Curious George]

There is a distinction between the objectival realm of things and the conceptival realm of things.

An example of a thing in the objectival realm is the nose in our face.

And an example of a thing in the conceptival realm is the idea of God.

Now, when we talk about God we have an idea of God, otherwise we would be talking about nothing at all with precision, if we don’t have an idea at all of God.

What is our idea of God? That is what we want to work on as to come to concurrence on the concept of God.

With the nose in our face, we all have the same idea of nose and we all know for a certainty the existence of the nose outside our mind, outside namely the conceptival realm, and it is in the objectival realm, independent of our mind.

So paging thinkers here, what is your concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

This is my definition of god:

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

That work for you?

I do not agree that God is defined as creator for a god need not create. If there wered two gods and one created and the other did all the oversight, would they not both be gods?

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, thanks for your quick reply.

I see you are into whether there is only one God or several.

Curious George said: ↑

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

That work for you?
___________________

I do not agree that God is defined as creator for a god need not create. If there wered two gods and one created and the other did all the oversight, would they not both be gods?​

That sounds sensible, that several Gods work together to get for example to bring the universe to existence, and also man, and everything with a beginning.

I just have right now one question for you, dear Curious George:

As you care to imagine that there be several Gods and they work together to bring about for example the universe and man and everything with a beginning, here is my question right now for you:

Shouldn't there be one of them to be the head God, and all others will have to follow Him, otherwise how can they get anything done at all?

What is your experience with getting together with others like yourself to complete some common purpose, like building a house?

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, thanks for your quick reply.

I see you are into whether there is only one God or several.

Curious George said: ↑

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

That work for you?
___________________

I do not agree that God is defined as creator for a god need not create. If there wered two gods and one created and the other did all the oversight, would they not both be gods?​

That sounds sensible, that several Gods work together to get for example to bring the universe to existence, and also man, and everything with a beginning.

I just have right now one question for you, dear Curious George:

As you care to imagine that there be several Gods and they work together to bring about for example the universe and man and everything with a beginning, here is my question right now for you:

Shouldn't there be one of them to be the head God, and all others will have to follow Him, otherwise how can they get anything done at all?

What is your experience with getting together with others like yourself to complete some common purpose, like building a house?

My experienceof working with others tells me that there are many models as there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am an atheist, so I needn't worry about whether there actually be more than one god, only that my definition allow me to recognize anything that I would understand as a god. Certainly, my nose is not a god! How can I say such? I, as you have suggested, have a concept of what a god is. Similarly, we needn't invoke a second god to explain how a god could exist without the creator tag. For instance, if the universe came in and out of existence of its own accord, yet some immortal entity was able to interact with this universe as a play thing we would still recognize such an entity as a god conceptually. Either way a god may or not be a creator, to assert that loss of this trait somehow revokes god status does not seem conceptually correct.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, thanks a lot for reacting to my posts, it is not my everyday experience in talking with atheists, because - my observation is that - atheists for being atheists do not think but are always on guard against anything at all which requires them to think.

No wonder they dismiss philosophy as useless and even harmful to their existence as human beings.

And now I notice that I have gravitated without being aware into the Philosophy board of these religious forums of the present site, I have another thread here coming later than the present one where you and I are interacting on.

[Earlier thread]
The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

Sanmario, Mar 18, 2017

Replies:

16

Yesterday at 4:40 AM


[Later thread]
Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

Sanmario, Yesterday at 3:58 AM

Replies:

22

50 minutes ago
​

So, it seems that I am of the idea that in philosophy at least atheists here will think instead of always reacting with clichés and slogans and with flippant remarks, all of which are into no intellectual linkage with me, but into what is in effect evasion from the issue of God exists or not.


Thanks for reading this post, and I expect you to react to my observation about atheists in general, correction, I mean atheists in the internet.


In my next post here in this thread I will take up one thought from your last post here, to for us to exchange thoughts on, with us both grounded on reason, observation, and thus intelligent conclusion with us two on the matter at hand.


Read my next post.

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, thanks a lot for reacting to my posts, it is not my everyday experience in talking with atheists, because - my observation is that - atheists for being atheists do not think but are always on guard against anything at all which requires them to think.

No wonder they dismiss philosophy as useless and even harmful to their existence as human beings.

And now I notice that I have gravitated without being aware into the Philosophy board of these religious forums of the present site, I have another thread here coming later than the present one where you and I are interacting on.

[Earlier thread]
The object and concept of God and the existence of God.

Sanmario, Mar 18, 2017

Replies:

16

Yesterday at 4:40 AM


[Later thread]
Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

Sanmario, Yesterday at 3:58 AM

Replies:

22

50 minutes ago
​

So, it seems that I am of the idea that in philosophy at least atheists here will think instead of always reacting with clichés and slogans and with flippant remarks, all of which are into no intellectual linkage with me, but into what is in effect evasion from the issue of God exists or not.


Thanks for reading this post, and I expect you to react to my observation about atheists in general, correction, I mean atheists in the internet.


In my next post here in this thread I will take up one thought from your last post here, to for us to exchange thoughts on, with us both grounded on reason, observation, and thus intelligent conclusion with us two on the matter at hand.


Read my next post.

Well, it is my experience that many people in general, regardless of whether they are atheist or theist, shy away from thinking too deeply.

 

[Sanmario]

Dear Curious George, you say [below is the post of concern reproduced], pay attention to the line in bold from me:

“For instance, if the universe came in and out of existence of its own accord, yet some immortal entity was able to interact with this universe as a play thing we would still recognize such an entity as a god conceptually.”
​

Do you notice that you are making an impossible supposition in that line in bold, so you have to remove that kind of a thought from your mind and heart, because it is not an intrinsically self-coherent and self-consistent thought for a supposition.

Next, I suggest you don’t make any suppositions at all but always talk from what is reality as we experience it when we are conscious and intelligently active with our mind and heart.

That is what in philosophy – as it should be, we humans must be into, namely, reality - instead of suppositional scenarios in particular scenarios which are intrinsically self-incoherent and self-inconsistent, thus altogether of no useful purpose except perhaps for self-amusement on the part of the would-be thinker.

My experienceof working with others tells me that there are many models as there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am an atheist, so I needn't worry about whether there actually be more than one god, only that my definition allow me to recognize anything that I would understand as a god. Certainly, my nose is not a god! How can I say such? I, as you have suggested, have a concept of what a god is. Similarly, we needn't invoke a second god to explain how a god could exist without the creator tag. For instance, if the universe came in and out of existence of its own accord, yet some immortal entity was able to interact with this universe as a play thing we would still recognize such an entity as a god conceptually. Either way a god may or not be a creator, to assert that loss of this trait somehow revokes god status does not seem conceptually correct.