chinu
chinu
And, its also NOT a cheating. isn't it ?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which Position Intuitvely Makes the Most Sense to You?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Nope.And, its also NOT a cheating. isn't it ?
If I had a concept of God I might be able to answer, but since I don't, I can't. And I can't simply accept others' versions of what God is.
#1 is easy to follow
#2 is semantic gibberish to me.
#2 is semantic gibberish to me.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Can you accept J. K. Rowling's version of what a wizard is?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Good point. For me it is more that god fans all seem to have read different books. Most Harry Potter readers would come up with a pretty consistent explanation of what a wizard is.Most fiction doesn't bother me, just that which seemingly is presented as fact.
I think it's because the god character is badly written, totally unbelievable and inconsistent. But what would you expect from an anthology written over centuries?
I could be wrong, but I think I know what your option 3 is. However, that option is covered under option 1.
Option 1 is the only logical option because it covers all possibilities of existence.
Pretty much but option one has 2 options
And by people who would be trounced by your average teenager these days in factual knowledge - optimistically, that is.
I just find it odd that many take writings from the past apparently with such reverence when they seem to fail to recognise the surroundings within which they were written - and hence the likelihood of there being substantial amounts of truth - apart from what any might glean about human nature from observation.
chinu
chinu
But you already choose.... 1) since Position 3) does exist.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Position 3 does exist but there was no option 3.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
It exists!1) Position 3) either exists or does not exist.
2) Position 3) neither exists nor does not exist.
if either, intuitively which sounds more likely to you ?
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
Throw me in with position #2. Our conception of existence is not really "built" to handle a notion like God.
I note that if #1 is preferred, then it is very obvious that God does, in fact, exist. I mean, it is easy enough to demonstrate that God concepts exist, if nothing else in people's minds and as a motivator for their actions, and perhaps in other ways. No one claims that Capitalism doesn't exist, or Existentialism. But with God, people get quite upset at that point, and say things like, "No I mean like really exists, like there's a man on a cloud somewhere with a name tag that reads "My name is God".
It is that sort of mundane exsitence that makes no sense to me when you try to apply it to, say, Plato's "God", who could not exist because existence itself is bound to the strictions of matter and intellect, and necessarily posterior to the fundamental organizing principle of the universe.
I note that if #1 is preferred, then it is very obvious that God does, in fact, exist. I mean, it is easy enough to demonstrate that God concepts exist, if nothing else in people's minds and as a motivator for their actions, and perhaps in other ways. No one claims that Capitalism doesn't exist, or Existentialism. But with God, people get quite upset at that point, and say things like, "No I mean like really exists, like there's a man on a cloud somewhere with a name tag that reads "My name is God".
It is that sort of mundane exsitence that makes no sense to me when you try to apply it to, say, Plato's "God", who could not exist because existence itself is bound to the strictions of matter and intellect, and necessarily posterior to the fundamental organizing principle of the universe.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Those are the only two options unless you can prove a negative.
Anything else would just be a personal opinion.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yep.
Been here before i not going into the evidence again
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Who said anything about evidence?
I am done talking about evidence unless someone asks me about evidence.
Without it all you have is faith, you don't prove anything with faith, that is the whole point of it
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I have what is evidence to me, so I base my beliefs on more than just faith.
I did not just wake up one day and say "I believe God exists because I have faith."
I would have no reason to believe that God exists without any evidence that indicates that God exists.
I do not have any verifiable evidence that God exists since verifiable evidence would be proof, and there is no proof that God exists, only evidence.
Yes i know what you believe. We have locked horns on this matter a time or few and it's not worth the argument