Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Actually, that is both logically and semantically inaccurate.
How so? Be specific.
Last edited:
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!
Actually, that is both logically and semantically inaccurate.
I have a huge problem with this. That is, I am not god, and you are not god. If all is god then we must be part of god, consciousness is a defining aspect of life, if we are conscious and we are part of god, then we make up as a collective either part or all of gods consciousness. So, even if some entity existed and all of life made up its collective conscousness, I would never consider myself or any other form of life a god so why would such an entity deserve the label "god". What is special about it that sets it apart from everything else that exists that it should be called god when existence more accurately describes all that is. Why go the extra step and call it god.
Your observations are most edifying.Well, according to your definition, nothing isn't god then. Although, according to your definition, god also seems to be a rather extraneous concept.
Your observations are most edifying.
Can't we all just agree to go back to the old guy in the sky concept? That way we avoid threads that spend 40 pages bickering over semantics.
__________________
Perhaps you are simply an aspect of God's super ego, keeping God in check?
As for why you would call reality God, I can offer an explanation as to why I personally call it "God". Firstly all power and knowledge is contained within reality, making reality the wisest and most powerful "being" of all. Secondly, reality makes me who I am, it provides me with life, love, hate, death, experience and everything else needed to define who I am. Thirdly, reality contains the most wonderful and terrible actions, extremes that no individual entity could hope to achieve alone.
To me, reality as a whole is the only thing deserving of the title of "supreme being" or God (capital G).
By the way, you can replace the word "reality" with existence or the universe if you wish, the concept remains the same, but semantics can be a nightmare.
*edit* Needless to say, going off this model of "God" there is nothing that God is not.
Depends on what "sky" you mean.Can't we all just agree to go back to the old guy in the sky concept?
Whose reality? And why would that be more simpler?So why not just keep it simple and stop at reality? Why does reality, existence, or the universe need to be called god? Or maybe a better question is why do humans need to call these things god?
And why would that be more simpler?
Regardless that we all have the same name for it, each "reality" being unique makes things more complicated.Calling something two different names without changing the original definition or meaning is not the simplest explanation.
So why not just keep it simple and stop at reality? Why does reality, existence, or the universe need to be called god? Or maybe a better question is why do humans need to call these things god?
Actually, that is both logically and semantically inaccurate.
How so? Be specific.
Perhaps sending a PM would be more reliable?Hello? Still interested to hear your argument.
Perhaps sending a PM would be more reliable?
So, trusting to chance. Okay.I have no problem with continuing conversations I start in threads. I don't think it's too much to expect the same courtesy of others.
So, trusting to chance. Okay.
The devil, is not God. The devil is the devil and God is God. Does that need clarifying?What isn't God? Why or why not?
What isn't God? Why or why not?