User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you believe in a personal God?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 52.17%
  • No

    11 47.83%
First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: What is God?

  1. #21
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    I choose the Christian god because it is my context--but yes, I'd say that I find the Christian god a good deal more irresistible than the Olympians... I'd say that the Islamic god is related to the Christian god in no small way, so I may find resonance there, but those stories are not my stories.
    What do you say to an NT who rejects faith because of this line of thinking...

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by W.K Clifford View Post
    It is always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.
    And


    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell View Post
    I wish to propose for the reader’s favorable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true, I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform social life and our political system; since both are at present faultless, this must weigh against it. I am also aware (what is more serious) that it would tend to diminish the incomes of clairvoyants, bookmakers, bishops and others who live on the irrational hopes of those who have done nothing to deserve good fortune here or thereafter. .
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #22
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    So, you're ok with believing in God even though you know that there is no reason to believe in anything of the like?
    There is cause for belief--just not logical cause. I definitely have a religious impulse that is probably most aptly described as irrational, but not in a sense that I would consider pejorative. It is the impulse to fall on my knees in awe and thanksgiving, in a sense of being loved and loving. I am willing to consider that this may be chemicals in the brain or that there may be some evolutionary reason for this impulse that I and many have, but it doesn't change that the impulse is there, and I never want to lose the feeling of it. Richard Dawkins calls this impulse delusional, and maybe that's true enough in some literal sense... but I guess that I don't want to care about that.

    If we try to make religion science, it will fail. If we demand the same things of it that we demand from experiments, it will fail. But if we allow it to be art, and leave room for symbols and metaphors and things beyond the literal, factual world (the flesh of the world), religion and faith can be beautiful and good and true. (It is not always beautiful and good and true; in fact, it is often not--but I am unwilling to throw the baby out with the bath water. What's good, I will keep. What's bad, I will personally discard.)


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    What do you say to an NT who rejects faith because of this line of thinking...

    I would say that those are rather narrow ways of experiencing the world and truth, and I feel pretty certain that everybody believes something with an irrational part of themselves sometimes. We tend to believe in things like love, for example. (I have to stop now--work calls and I am dreadfully behind.)
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  3. #23
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    There is cause for belief--just not logical cause. I definitely have a religious impulse that is probably most aptly described as irrational, but not in a sense that I would consider pejorative. It is the impulse to fall on my knees in awe and thanksgiving, in a sense of being loved and loving. I am willing to consider that this may be chemicals in the brain or that there may be some evolutionary reason for this impulse that I and many have, but it doesn't change that the impulse is there, and I never want to lose the feeling of it. Richard Dawkins calls this impulse delusional, and maybe that's true enough in some literal sense... but I guess that I don't want to care about that.

    If we try to make religion science, it will fail. If we demand the same things of it that we demand from experiments, it will fail. But if we allow it to be art, and leave room for symbols and metaphors and things beyond the literal, factual world (the flesh of the world), religion and faith can be beautiful and good and true. (It is not always beautiful and good and true; in fact, it is often not--but I am unwilling to throw the baby out with the bath water. What's good, I will keep. What's bad, I will personally discard.)





    I would say that those are rather narrow ways of experiencing the world and truth, and I feel pretty certain that everybody believes something with an irrational part of themselves sometimes. We tend to believe in things like love, for example. (I have to stop now--work calls and I am dreadfully behind.)
    I dont believe in love, nor do I see any reason to. I chose not to believe in anything that I can't support with logical argument. I know it leads to intolerable skepticism, but its better than being befooled...

    Why do we need to believe in things that we have no reason to deem to be true?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #24
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I dont believe in love, nor do I see any reason to. I chose not to believe in anything that I can't support with logical argument. I know it leads to intolerable skepticism, but its better than being befooled...
    Yes, but lots and lots of uber-logical NTs DO believe in love and maybe some other things (like God) that can't be proven. Not everybody's an emotionless robot. (I say this good naturedly--I don't actually believe that you are an emotionless robot; I bet that there's some part of you that does believe in love... or something else.)

    Why do we need to believe in things that we have no reason to deem to be true?
    There seems to be a reason that we need to believe in some things, but I surely do not know what it is.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  5. #25
    Senior Member creativeRhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    113

    Default

    A lot depends on what we hear/see when we are young: The formation of beliefs/principles.

    It serves society to have the sense of "something in control beyond just another human" that can punish/reward or a principle such as Karma.

    both have a role in social order and cohesion - it is a modifier of conscious behaviour but not necessarily "things done in passion".

    But more fundamentally I find this sort of research interesting -

    BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the Brain

    is just a sample of the work being done on brain and religious (or similar sensation) experience.

    my very atheistic ENTJ husband had a brain tumour that went from his parietal lobes (in that article the bit that "grounds us" in time and space) his occipital lobes (taking out much of his vision) and then on to his temporal lobe. At various times he became quite "religious" - some of it was comfort seeking, but other bits sounded like the data in this article. Much of the changes depended on how much pressure was building up in his head due to swelling and tumour.

    But ultimately it comes down to yet another nature vs nurture thing. Also how much "comfort"/certainty one needs vs acceptance of unknowable/uncertain.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Originally posted by BLUEWING:
    uncouth and bewildered they interpreted everything anthropomorphically. Much analogously to how children tend to think the world revolves around them. The more primitive our thinking is, the more likely we are to think anthropomorphically. Hence, INJs of 3000 years back perceived their powerful intuitions as a person who resembled their father figure or God.

    Yet Nietzsche and Dostoevsky were realists enough to understand that what they had going on was no more than a powerful connection to the realm of abstract thought. Had they lived several thousand years back, no doubt they would have had intricate mythological characters representing their ideas that we'd be reading in our gospels today. Whoever does the best job of appealing to the tastes and prejudices of the common folk will be the most influential visionary. So, it is no surprise that prophets who spoke about how God shared all the tastes and prejudices of the conventional man of their community were hailed as geniuses.

    God is to be thought of as a metaphor for the greatest possible good in the universe. Such a notion could only be abstract and can not manifest itself in concrete terms, therefore direct revelation


    You sing the tune of the "abstract" yet your very question "what is God?" unveils your true identity: you are a concrete reductionist , one who reduces everything to mere, palpable matter, to a gum that people can chew! You speak against sensors yet when I think of God I don't clad God in a robe with a crown on the head, but you assume to know that since your comments imply that!
    You explain people's belief in God using a utilitarian linguo "greatest good" yet if there even exists such a thing, you perhaps never wondered, or contemplated about who put that thought in people's minds, who gave us the cognitive faculty of reason through which we can have access to higher truths than our little selves, and not by creating them but instead by accepting them as they already are!The thought of eternity, the thought of unchangeable, the idea of infinite!
    You speak of the idea of Jesus in psychological terms, inspired by Jung your true Christ who shows you the way and understands the human soul to the utmost extent! Yes Jung is the one who understands that humans possess a "rushing to the toilet need" to create archetypes! We need this ideal that we/humans came up with, in which we tried to bring God himself on earth to make it more accesible, yet unconsciously you are being hypocritical because by reading your question on this thread it seems that you are doing exactly just that!
    Wow you amaze me with your power to rationalize things, but tell me: Who is the greater being-one who allows the mind and heart to believe and conceive of something greater than the self, or someone that can't accept anything like that? You smell of psychological egoism! In order to accept Jesus as the being HE IS, one needs to realize that unlike Santa Clause he himself purported to die for us/humans-in order for this claim to stand, and to obtain validity he had to be 100% human, and 100% God=the sacrifice is valid only if he meets those two conditions. Unlike Santa Clause who brings you cheers, he spoke about life as being full of sorrows, yet he encouraged everyone to overcome it since he's done it himself! If you doubt the source on this matter, than perhaps you should doubt the source in everything that's older than your generation!
    You say: "
    A good preacher shows his skill when he has people going along with him without having a slightest clue to what he is saying.


    It surprises me that everyone on this forum goes along with your churclish comments and from this I deduct that your very comment on preachers applies to you! You speak nonsense and you have people following you, without contradicting the hypocrisy in your statements!You are the preacher that you speak about and these people are your herd!
    [

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Originally posted by EILEEN:
    I do not intellectually believe in a personal God, but I give my heart over to the idea of it. The story of a personal God--in particular, for me, the Christian God--is one that is edifying, even if I can't intellectually accept it as factual.
    __________________

    Eileen- How can you give your heart to a false claim? Since you don't agree with it intelectually , you don't validate it, so then why do you buy into little lies? Have you been like this in past relationships too, where "the other" said to you "I love you" yet even though you knew that he didn't, you were in love with the idea of him loving you? When one can't synthesize what's in one's head and what lies in the heart, well then my friend there's a dissociation problem that we're dealing with. Are you OK with the disorder among your organs? Nothing seems to be unified inside of you but instead each organ does what it likes, and you lie there helpless giving us an account about what your heart believes, what your hand does, what your mind ate...etc.
    Suggestion: Pull yourself together!
    [

  8. #28
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    [QUOTE=LIND;56926]

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [you are a concrete reductionist!
    My writings have not displayed any tendencies towards metaphysical materialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [who gave us the cognitive faculty of reason through !
    Who gave us? Who made this watch? Must have been the same kind of a person who made us! Its just an old superstition that has been thoroughly eviscerated by Hume. The universe does not need a creator. What we have is just the infinite realm, and the finite scope that we perceive it through is no more than how the infinite realm emanates to our minds.

    See emanation theory-

    Advanced Search

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [You speak of the idea of Jesus in psychological terms, inspired by Jung your true Christ who shows you the way and understands the human soul to the utmost extent!!
    What reason do we have to believe in any of this? Is there anything in concrete observations that points towards anything of the like? Any formula, in mathematical logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [Yes Jung is the one who understands that humans possess a "rushing to the toilet need" to create archetypes! !!
    Jung maintains that we necessarily perceive everything in archetypes, that is just the way human nature works. There is no way around it. It is as fundamental to our perceptions as are time, space, color and heat.


    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [Yes Jung is the one who understands that humans possess a "rushing to the toilet need" to create archetypes!!!
    I take it something that Jung said is not in line with your sensibilities. What you're saying is that because you think there is something wrong with Jung as a person, there must be something wrong with his ideas--IE, he must not know what human nature is like. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [We need this ideal that we/humans came up with, in which we tried to bring God himself on earth to make it more accesible,!!!
    What is God? You still haven't answered the primary question of this discourse.

    Made him more accessible? How?

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [yet unconsciously you are being hypocritical because by reading your question on this thread it seems that you are doing exactly just that!,!!!
    Encouraging blind obedience to arbitrary authority? No, this is the fundamental difference between philosophy and religion. When I tell you something that I think is true, I'd never assert that you should take my word for it, you should question everything and believe only in things that you can support with logical argument. Religion just tells you the following: Here is the way it is, believe it. End of discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    Wow you amaze me with your power to rationalize things, but tell me: Who is the greater being-one who allows the mind and heart to believe and conceive of something greater than the self!,!!!
    There isnt a need for a greater being its all an old superstition which should have been burried all the way back in the middle ages with St.Aquinas. Quite the effrontery that it is still around. Much like Schopenhauer said reviving Thomistic theistic rationalism after Kant and Hume is just like if we were to wish to re-introduce alchemy to modern chemistry.




    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [or someone that can't accept anything like that?!,!!!
    ,


    Quote Originally Posted by W.K Clifford View Post
    It is always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.
    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    In order to accept Jesus as the being HE IS, one needs to realize that unlike Santa Clause he himself purported to die for us/humans-in order
    What we know is that we have a text where it says that he did all of those things which is likely apocryphal.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    Unlike Santa Clause who brings you cheers, he spoke about life as being full of sorrows, yet he encouraged everyone to overcome it since he's done it himself! If you doubt the source on this matter, than perhaps you should doubt the source in everything that's older than your generation!
    What's your point? There are many other religious leaders who claimed divinity for similar reasons, why do we brush them off in favor of Jesus?


    .
    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    It surprises me that everyone on this forum goes along with your churclish comments!
    I don't have any minions.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Originally posted BY Bluewing:
    I take it something that Jung said is not in line with your sensibilities. What you're saying is that because you think there is something wrong with Jung as a person, there must be something wrong with his ideas--IE, he must not know what human nature is like. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.


    Actually you are quite wrong since my statement is merely alluding to the fact (being sarcastic) that you demand certain proofs about what has been said in the Scriptures, yet you are willing to accept any unverified (theoretical) data that comes from another (Jung). This my friend implies a selective judgment on your part, since you would do anything to validate the claims made by someone of your (unconscious if not conscious)preference (subjective) over the claims that Christ made (perhaps you could also say theoretically).
    Why don't you do this! Can you show me this "archetype-Jung " and not in theory but in the palpable realm since all that constitutes that which you accept needs to be touchy touchy,feely feely.(and please don't point out any weird characters-that would be too easy).
    You seem to agree with Parmenidis when he claims:
    1.Whatever can be thought or spoken about either is or is not.
    2. It's not possible to think or speak about what is not.
    %Anything that can be thought is.
    Jung seems to have gathered information based on perceptual cues that he's observed and labeled it as being a "need for archetype-e.g.mother,god.." yet Jesus spoke of truths that were not picked up through perceptual knowledge but instead truths that you can only have access to by following the tunnel of faith.

    My writings have not displayed any tendencies towards metaphysical materialism

    Once again do I have to repeat myself by pointing out that the format of your question is wrong, because it ultimately attempts to reduce God to something palpable?

    But let's say I play the fool and I give an answer to your question-What is God?-
    Answer: God is the greatest entity that the human mind can think of, though it can not comprehend God in fulness, since that would imply a godly ability possessed by oneself! God is the tower that science attempts to reach through all sorts of methods, yet given that the methods are conceived of human minds, the methods are limited. You can travel in the sky , but you can't create the sky, you can fly through the outer plains, reach planets but not even Einstein was able to figure out just how everything is set. The things that we look at gives us a slight (partial) notion that God is. Should I give a better definition of God? Well...I would have to be God.
    [

  10. #30
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post

    Actually you are quite wrong since my statement is merely alluding to the fact (being sarcastic) that you demand certain proofs about what has been said in the Scriptures, yet you are willing to accept any unverified (theoretical) data that comes from another (Jung)..
    Here is the difference. Scripture just says: here is how it is, believe it. When I say I believe in archetypes I give the following argument. With Hume we learn that we only have access to our perceptions of how the world is, but we don't know if our perceptions reflect the way the world is. An archetype is more than pictures or symbols that our minds rely on to depict the external reality. Don't believe in an archetype? Can you think of a better way to explain how our minds perceive and refer to external world?


    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    Why don't you do this! Can you show me this "archetype-Jung " and not in theory but in the palpable realm since all that constitutes that which you accept needs to be touchy touchy,feely feely.(and please don't point out any weird characters-that would be too easy). )..
    So, whatever is real must have concrete-empirical evidence? How about 2 plus 2 is 4? No concrete evidence, therefore it must have no meaning to you? Not even radical empiricists like Hume and Locke would argue this point, even they believed that there was human nature for which there is no empirical evidence. Archetype is within the province of human nature, not the external, physical nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [Jung seems to have gathered information based on perceptual cues that he's observed and labeled it as being a "need for archetype-e.g.mother,god.." yet Jesus spoke of truths that were not picked up through perceptual knowledge but instead truths that you can only have access to by following the tunnel of faith. )..
    There is more to Jung's inquiry than that. See the aforementioned proof for the existence of archetypes.

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [Once again do I have to repeat myself by pointing out that the format of your question is wrong, because it ultimately attempts to reduce God to something palpable?)..
    Far from saying that God must be reduced to something material, I am saying that God is all. God is both material and immaterial. God can not be reduced because I take for term 'God' and the 'infinite universe' to mean the same thing. What is infinite can not be reduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by LIND View Post
    [Answer: God is the greatest entity that the human mind can think of, though it can not comprehend God in fulness, since that would imply a godly ability possessed by oneself! God is the tower that science attempts to reach through all sorts of methods, yet given that the methods are conceived of human minds, the methods are limited. You can travel in the sky , but you can't create the sky, you can fly through the outer plains, reach planets but not even Einstein was able to figure out just how everything is set. The things that we look at gives us a slight (partial) notion that God is. Should I give a better definition of God? Well...I would have to be God.

    God is indefinable because he is infinite and therefore outside of human comprehension.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. What is God's Relationship to Morality?
    By Blank in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 10:26 AM
  2. What Type is God?
    By Haight in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 07:00 PM
  3. Who, or what, is this "God"?
    By Iriohm in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 09:09 PM
  4. What is the god of this world?
    By Risen in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-23-2010, 01:43 AM
  5. What is this god of which you speak?
    By juggernaut in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 07:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO