If one were to apotheosize this “psuedo-conscious force” would God be the end result? Perhaps “God” is nothing more than the process of apotheosis. A faith-based creation?
make that “pseudo-conscious force”
Let’s say I understand the concept you hope to express, but that that concept seems to be at its core truly inconceivable. If you can’t express it in a meaningful way, then how exactly do you know what you’re talking about? More importantly, how would you know that Gaudere knows what you’re talking about if you can’t adequately express the object in question?
Abstract thinking is fine and dandy, but again it brings you no closer to a concrete comprehension of this thing (which again limits it - as would calling it a concept - as would calling it anything). Unfortunately, if this god entity (oops, limited it again) is beyond all comprehension and expression, it becomes inherently meaningless to anyone but yourself. Not that I’ve ever seen you claim otherwise, but it does lead me to wonder what goal, if any, you might have in such a discussion.
I wouldn’t so much say it took away - rather it didn’t add anything meaningful.
I thought it was:
I am He
As you are He
As you are me
And we are all together.
Oh, wait…
[…shrug…] Sounds Humish to me. Are you suggesting that mediate knowledge is impossible?
My goal was to answer the question I responded to. It’s Iconoclast’s discussion. God is like obscenity; you’ll know Him when you see Him.
Then you must have meant something else when you accused me of obfuscation.
I don’t recall saying such a thing, no. My point was that if you try to express this knowledge you’ve gained from other knowledge, but such a task isn’t possible, then do the words you utter actually have any meaningful reference to the knowledge at hand?
With respect to the assertion that Gaudere would understand such knowledge the same as you, then I would say you have no way of knowing with any certainty if her “indescribable knowledge” is the same as yours.
In much the same way, I can’t say that you and I see the color blue exactly the same - we can try to talk about the quality of “blueness” and our perception of it, but it’s impossible for me to know if you perceive it the same way. So long as we both function well using our perception of blue, it doesn’t matter much. I’d say though that if you assume Gaudere has the same knowledge of God (without being able to know that), and she doesn’t, one of you is in serious trouble. Of course, who knows which one?
So Scientologists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and assorted other religions (and random kooks like Son of Sam) are all correct? Does god’s definition (or lack of definition) come down to whatever someone says it happens to be (or in this case, is unable to say)?
Obscenity is relative. Is god’s existence solely in the eye of the beholder?
One need not add anything meaningful to be unclear and difficult to understand, which is what I felt your initial response was. Intentional or not, the waters became more muddied - it was meant more as an observation of the result of your words, rather than an indictment of your motives.
Super Head,
Yes, it DOES mean that they are all right. And all wrong. They are all attempts to understand something that is, by definition, something that is beyond them and their true understanding.
The problems come in when they start to argue that each of them has the one and only right answer, rather than the right answer for them. You know, like a hard atheist does.
Grow up and respect that we all will have to (hopefully respectfully) diagree on matters that are beyond proof. I appreciate why someone chooses to be an atheist, and was one myself. I have respect for that position. I do not respect proselytizers of any faith, including that of the atheism. They are all obnoxious and arrogant.
Not to be obnoxious and/or arrogant but are you implying atheism is faith-based?
I’m fully grown up (although I’d like to be a little taller) - I apologize if my lack of ability to understand one’s desire to place their trust in something they admittedly can’t express or, in some cases, even begin to understand, is seen as childish. I see it more as critical thought. I fully respect your right to hold whatever belief you like about god - you may believe he is some abstract concept or even tapioca pudding if you like - it does not however mean I have to respect the belief itself in the least or consider it in the realm of possibility (although who knows, maybe god is tapioca).
If you do not wish to defend your belief, stay clear of Great Debates. If you do not want to have your beliefs questioned, stay clear of Great Debates. If you want to safely believe whatever you like without ever being called on it, well, you know the routine… I’ve not been condescending, insulting, abrasive, or arrogant (not to any degree that would rival the tamest of the Pit anyway). I’ve merely questioned statements and sought clarification.
First, I do not choose to be an atheist. I simply am - it’s the result of many years of questioning my faith and learning about the world from somewhere other than my church. If you actively choose to believe or not believe, if such a thing is possible, I would call it more wishful hoping that you believed differently than you do.
Second, I’m hardly out here saying “You should be an atheist because X, Y, and Z” - I am merely questioning statements made by others. There is a difference. A discussion or debate in which each party said “Oh, that’s nice <golf clap>” would be quite a bore, don’t you think?
This discussion has apparently reached the end of its usefulness. Good day.
That might be your opinion. It’s not mine; I believe God exists as I defined God, not just in the human imagination. (I also didn’t say “pseudo-conscious force,” so please do not put that in quotation marks as if I had.)
RickJay, my intent with the quotation marks was just for emphasis of how I interpreted your definition of the above post. I should have used italics.
Since you posted this “conscious force” was not really either of those terms by definition, pseudo is the word that came to mind. It sounded better than kinda/sorta.
If you believe that God doesn’t exist, but cannot prove it, what else is it but faith?
It can be argued that that is true of any and all words, references, and contexts. In this way, a definition of God is no different than any other definition. At some point, you must accept a set of terms as “undefined”. Otherwise, you end up having to define the terms in your definition, and then the terms in your definitions of your terms, and then the terms in your definitions of your defintions of your terms, and so on.
If the definition of God as “I AM” means nothing to you, then I know of no augmentation that might be helpful.
I said she understands; I did not say that she understands in exactly the same way that I understand. That would be impossible, since consciousness is a closed reference frame.
Gaudere employs empathy (the cornerstone of her morality) in order to understand, as best she can, the opinions and worldviews of others. She knows that she cannot see through my eyes, but she at least attempts to see into my head.
Gaudere can speak for herself with respect to the particulars of her understanding. I speak only to the track record that I have observed.
Yes, of course.
Not His existence, but His relevance.
Thanks for clearing that up. You understand, of course, that the waters go both ways. It is difficult, from this reference frame, to understand precisely what it is that you don’t “get”.
Actually the premise of your statement is incorrect, I don’t have belief that God doesn’t exist. I do have knowledge that this alledged entity has so far been above definition other than by silly Greek identity riddles. I do have faith that no person of faith has had enough faith to define what God is other than a faithful perspective. In fact, it appears by all accounts that Faith is the Deity.
Then you need to do some serious work on your expository skills. 
Hmmm. Okay. Define biological life.
We gave you God’s own definition.
At last, you understand.
Super head,
Personally, I enjoy GD and other SDMB threads. I’ve learned from those with very different beliefs than I have. I can disagree with someone and still learn from them. For example, Lib, drastic, erislover, and others, who may have different perspectives, but treat each other with respect, and do not hijack every thread to their own agenda. Some threads, maybe.
Making every thread that mentions God into the atheist rant page is not Great Debate; there have been plenty of “Prove God” “Prove Atheism” threads … it’s a bore after a while.
I AM curious to understand how different people define God. Your answer is, I think, that God is a construct created by people to make life easier for either a) themselves or b) for society to control the masses. Not an unreasoned point of view. Worthy of exposition and relevant to the OP. Probably true, at least in part, IF one defines God as the God of organized reliigion only.
You do not choose what you believe? Interesting. I believe in free will. I choose.
And yes Iconoclast, Atheism is a faith. I can understand (and disagree) with the argument, that there is no need to defend that faith, any more than a need to defend a faith that pink unicorns on Mars don’t exist, but it is still as much a statement of faith as a belief in God is.
Actually the intent of this thread was not about atheism at all, but a request for a logical definition of God. So far that definition is nothing more than: I AM The Conscious Force of Faith I AM, or something to that effect. Hardly worthy of worship to say the least. As far as atheism and theism go, belief systems or not, the world could function just fine without either.
The best I’ve heard and the one that I keep using is, God the Omnipotent Sky Jockey. Sorta says it all…
A counter-question exclusively for the OP— no cheaters!— is this:
What definition of anything exists which does not
By my line of thinking, every definition fits under category three (it makes stuff up), contains implicitly condition number 1, and is understood best to newcomers through condition number 2.
For example, an electron (3 already satisfied) is a fundamental subatomic particle which (1 coming) is a carrier/mediator of the electromagnetic force and constantly (oh shit, here comes 2) seeks out the lowest energy state.
I would welcome any insight into the matter.
[sub]Hi dseid![/sub]
And I don’t believe I turned it into an “atheist rant” page as you put it. Libertarian put forth his definition of god and I proceeded to question him on it - that’s it. At no time did I say “There is no god! La la la la la!” so please stop insinuating that I did something of the sort. In fact, while I still think Libertarian’s definition is sorely lacking, we seemed to reach a point of agreeing to disagree. If you want to invoke a persecution complex, you’ll have to do it with someone other than me. This of course assume the bit about ranting was directed at me, and, say, not Lolo. 
This is easily disproven. Choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese, or that God is really tapioca pudding. Don’t just say it - believe it as the truth. I don’t think you can choose to do that. I think our beliefs are arrived at via experience and, to a lesser degree for many people (not implying an insult to anyone), contemplative review and integration of those experiences.