Where Is God?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 169
#61
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I read something in a book once that said that this god guy appeared to some dude as a flaming bush.
Yes you heard me. ( A FLAMING BUSH ) 
Well what i am trying to say is. If there is any truth to this.  
I myself have actually seen a flaming bush or two in my life. 
Soooooooooooo yeah , I've seen god. 
No.
No 
I no it isn't true. I forget what book it was.  God isn't or wasn't a flaming bush right? 

Guys? 

He wasn't a bush on fire hey? 

Good game.
Good game.




 


#62
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Can burning bushes talk?


#63
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
These are poetic ways of describing relationship with God.

Outside the context of that relationship, you can only view these expressions in a manner that is superstitious.

The important thing to recognize is that existence is the defining attribute of God, so if you deny God exists, you are not recognizing that The Word Is what it says it is.

#64
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
These are poetic ways of describing relationship with God.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I want to nail down God's existence before talking about any relationship with it.

I would like to move on to the portion of the conversation where you demonstrate or provide the justification that reality has the attributes you have assigned to it. Specifically (but not limited to)

  • That reality can be pleased
  • That reality has a will and conscious sense of timing
  • That reality can judge

#65
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I already explained this quite thoroughly in post 52. That is how it works.

But really, you confuse yourself with these questions because the essence of God is existence, not attributes.



#66
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Sorry, but that is just elaborations on these claims you've made. I'm interested in moving to the part of the discussion where you justify their truth.

#67
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Not elaborations. Explanations of what these descriptions look like.

I maintain that your interpretation of these "attributes" is superstitious.


The Ultimate Reality is God. If God does not have these attributes, it doesn't change the fact that God exists.


Good atheistic arguments can only at best show what God isn't. It isn't possible to disprove God. It is hardly even readonable to be in doubt about God's existence.
#68
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Not elaborations. Explanations of what these descriptions look like.
I consider that to be an elaboration.

I maintain that your interpretation of these "attributes" is superstitious.


The Ultimate Reality is God. If God does not have these attributes, it doesn't change the fact that God exists.
If God doesn't have these attributes then God is just reality and there is no sense it making up a new word to describe it, or build a religion out of it, or worship it, or invite it into your heart, or fear it or anything like that.

If those attributes don't matter, I struggle to understand why the were invoked to begin with.

Good atheistic arguments can only at best show what God isn't. It isn't possible to disprove God. It is hardly even readonable to be in doubt about God's existence.
It's impossible to disprove that some god-like entity exists, I agree. But it is completely possible to disprove specific instantiations of god-like concepts, such as God.
#69
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
The Ultimate Reality is God.

That is all there is to it. 

It is a complete waste of time to try and kill God. In fact, it is in every way harmful. 

Those who kill God are crucifying The Truth itself. Naturally, this is destructive and misguided. In the end though, you can't kill The Truth. 

The Ultimate Reality exists. It is not simply an error to state otherwise, it is a patently idiotic position. The Ultimate Reality is God, and disputing this is in every way an attempt at being subversive to our doctrine. Subversive in the manner that is dismisses it, and isn't capable of knowing it.

What does that lead to? Gulags and re-education camps. The classifying of religious belief as mental illness. It leads to my people beimg oppressed, and certainly we have had plenty of that in recent  times.

#70
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.
Okay, but we already have a word for reality: "reality."

Why do we need to invent a new word for it?

That is all there is to it. 
There appears to be a great deal more, what with the pleasing and inviting and judging and such.

It is a complete waste of time to try and kill God. In fact, it is in every way harmful. 

Those who kill God are crucifying The Truth itself. Naturally, this is destructive and misguided. In the end though, you can't kill The Truth. 
This has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.

The Ultimate Reality exists. It is not simply an error to state otherwise, it is a patently idiotic position. The Ultimate Reality is God, and disputing this is in every way an attempt at being subversive to our doctrine. Subversive in the manner that is dismisses it, and isn't capable of knowing it.]]
I don't deny reality exists. I deny that it has the attributes you've assigned to it.

What does that lead to? Gulags and re-education camps. The classifying of religious belief as mental illness. It leads to my people beimg oppressed, and certainly we have had plenty of that in recent  times.
This has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.

#71
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Okay, but we already have a word for reality: "reality."

Why do we need to invent a new word for it?

Our doctrine is older than the English language. The words we are using right now to communicate are what are new.

What this does is make specific that we are talkimg about what is eternally reality, and not simply temporal reality.

For example, it is true that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. This is reality. 10 years ago, it was not reality. 10 from now it will not be reality.

The Eternal Reality is always true, never not true. It is not a created reality, it is The Uncreated Reality.



#72
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Our doctrine is older than the English language. The words we are using right now to communicate are what are new.

What this does is make specific that we are talkimg about what is eternally reality, and not simply temporal reality.

For example, it is true that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. This is reality. 10 years ago, it was not reality. 10 from now it will not be reality.

The Eternal Reality is always true, never not true. It is not a created reality, it is The Uncreated Reality.
You're just talking in circles now. I agree that reality exists. I agree that it is eternal.

I disagree that it is a conscious entity. I disagree that it can be pleased, or judges people. I disagree that it is something I can "invite" into my heart. I disagree that it has any quality or attribute that makes it a god.

#73
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Well, you at least acknowledge that God exists.
#74
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
As you have described it, I do not acknowledge that God exists.

I acknowledge that reality exists.

I do not acknowledge that reality has the attributes that you have assigned to it that make it God.
#75
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
The Ultimate Reality is God as I describe it.

There are no additional attributes that make God.

#76
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God as I describe it.
And I reject that description.
#77
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
No, I describe God as The Ultimate  Reality.

The Ultimate Reality Is What it Is.

That is God.




#78
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
No, I describe God as The Ultimate  Reality.

The Ultimate Reality Is What it Is.

That is God.
You describe it as a conscious entity capable of judgment and pleasure.

I reject that description.
#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
That is not what is essential.

You are confused by parables and poetry.


What is essential is that God is The Truth in the realest sense.

#80
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
That is not what is essential.

You are confused by parables and poetry.

What is essential is that God is The Truth in the realest sense.
It is disheartening that you decided to confuse the issue with nonessential parables and poetry.

So let's start over again, from square one. This time, let's only include the essentials.

  1. ronjs started with the claim: "All you have to do is sincerely invite Him in."
  2. To which I replied: "And then what?"
  3. To which ronjs continued: "He will let you know what's next."
  4. And I followed up: "Oh? How long does that usually take? I'm going on 3 decades almost. I hope he decides to do it before I die, since my immortal soul and eternal torment are on the line here."
It was at this point you decided to join in with non-essential and confusing parables and poetry. So let us restart from this point minus the flower metaphors.
#81
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
We say things like, The hand of God, the breathe of God, the word of God, etc.

We are not saying that God has lungs or hands in the sense that people do. Naturally, it is the case when we speak of God, we use imagery to communicate.


Our is not an elitest faith, we are a communal faith. That being the case, we use many different ways and means to communicate these things. We teach children, illiterates, even the slow. Our faith is foundationally a very simple faith. It is simple. Simple, but not easy. Simple enough that even the simplest of men can come to know it. Deep enough to never stop yielding treasure for those more gifted.









#82
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Cool, so let's continue the conversation using a method of communication that doesn't include confusing parables or poetry. Just the essentials, starting where we left off.
#83
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Why are parables and poetry confusing?

Some of the best communicated ideas were given through parables and poetry.

Sure parables and poetry can be confusing, but it seems you want a dialogue on your terms.

Too often the atheist pretends that metaphors, similes, and figures of speech don't exist and feigns confusion. 

If God does exist, it seems highly logical that He would be the ultimate reality, as all reality would have flowed out from Him.

If you do not believe God exists, then OK, but if you allow the possibility, then the most reasonable extended conclusion is mopac's argument that the ultimate truth is God.

If you allow for the possibility of God existing, but deny He is the ultimate truth, why do you refer to Him as God?
#84
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5
Why are parables and poetry confusing?
Ask Mopac.

Some of the best communicated ideas were given through parables and poetry.

Sure parables and poetry can be confusing, but it seems you want a dialogue on your terms.
I'm not really dictating terms, but Mopac seems to be unwilling to expand or address the parables, and implying that they are getting in the way. So if that's the case then we should get rid of them. I don't care either way.

Too often the atheist pretends that metaphors, similes, and figures of speech don't exist and feigns confusion. 

If God does exist, it seems highly logical that He would be the ultimate reality, as all reality would have flowed out from Him.
If it "flowed out" from him, then that means reality is distinct from him and he wouldn't be reality. Him and reality would be two distinct things.

If you do not believe God exists, then OK, but if you allow the possibility, then the most reasonable extended conclusion is mopac's argument that the ultimate truth is God.

If you allow for the possibility of God existing, but deny He is the ultimate truth, why do you refer to Him as God?
I don't allow for the possibility of God existing because I deny that he is the ultimate truth/ultimate reality.

#85
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
The Ultimate Reality is what is meant by God.

The Ultimate Reality exists. By definition it is reality in the truest sense of the word. That which is ultimately real.

There is no reasonable doubt about God's existence.

#86
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is what is meant by God.

The Ultimate Reality exists. By definition it is reality in the truest sense of the word. That which is ultimately real.

There is no reasonable doubt about God's existence.
I already have a word for reality.

"Reality."

Please explain to me the necessity or utility of coining another word or phrase to describe something which already has an adequate label.
#87
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I don't allow for the possibility of God existing because I deny that he is the ultimate truth/ultimate reality.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."



Excuse me for pointing at the Soviet Union as an example of what happens when people who take our faith as mental illness take power. In effect that is what you are doing by dismissing it outright.








#88
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I already have a word for reality.

"Reality."

Please explain to me the necessity or utility of coining another word or phrase to describe something which already has an adequate label


I already did in post 71.
#89
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
I thought we agreed to dispense with the parables and poetry.

Excuse me for pointing at the Soviet Union as an example of what happens when people who take our faith as mental illness take power. In effect that is what you are doing by dismissing it outright.
It isn't, nor is it relevant to anything I've said.

Post #71:

Our doctrine is older than the English language. The words we are using right now to communicate are what are new.

What this does is make specific that we are talkimg about what is eternally reality, and not simply temporal reality.

For example, it is true that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. This is reality. 10 years ago, it was not reality. 10 from now it will not be reality.

The Eternal Reality is always true, never not true. It is not a created reality, it is The Uncreated Reality.
I really don't see how this answers my question. We already have a word - in the English language - that describes reality:

"reality."

So I don't see why we need to create a new word - in the English language - to also describe reality:

"God."

What does using the word "God" do for us that using the word "reality" does not?
#90
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
It is making specific the reality we are speaking of.

Not "reality", but "Reality".

Not facts, truths, and realities. Reality itself.


The reality that there are 50 states in the USA is not God.



What is ULTIMATELY REAL. That is God.