Who, or what, is this "God"?

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

If you found God, what would happen?

I would have him turn water into wine and then go...

 

[foolish heart]

If you found God, what would happen?

God finds us.

 

[Iriohm]

If a fact is factual then it is true. You are trying to destroy objective truth but this argument won't work.

Hardly, but this only proves my point further.

No. Your redefinitions are innacurate and your argument fallacious.

Care to tell me why? I was only making clear how I define the relevant terms, in the interests of more efficient communication.

No. Sentience depends upon the ability to percieve. When, and only when, a being is able to percieve may he then be called sentient and he may then be able to create comparisons and contrasts in order to choose. A robot arm has both the ability to choose things and its programming inclines it to do so, but it is not truly sentient because it is not aware of its own existence. The specific god of the bible we're talking about is most certainly aware of its existence.

One could also argue that a robot eye has the ability to perceive, whilst a robot arm hardly has the ability to choose without the intervention of a human mind, and then only with a certain repetition. I'm talking "inclination" as in "preference spawned from emotion", though I will not dispute that God is self-aware.

Which is it then? You're trying to redefine god so much.

"Define", not "redefine", and I'm just speculating at this point. Which do you think it is?

No. Within the contexts of the game, the quote was made in refrence to the Piece of Eden; which was an object that could influence and change reality through supernatural means. If you'll note, Altair tried to use the quote to justify his lawlessness and disobedience and that master-guy refuted this position. I can't recall the conversation though.

The quote was the literal "Assassin's Creed", actually, and wasn't in reference to the Piece of Eden in particular. Also, like pretty much every such quote, it means what we think it means, so no: you don't get to say "No".

 

[Iriohm]

What MM said is another way to describe the fact that what is infinite never changes.

Our imagination seems infinite, but to say this is to misunderstand what infinity really is. The entire universe and everything within it, including our minds and everything they know and imagine, everything we can think of until the end of time is still finite.

Infinity implies open-endedness. Therefore, to be infinite, we must never stop thinking, or imagining. So long we keep this up, imagination is as infinite as the universe.

It will never be infinite because the period between the beginning and end of time is not forever. It is not forever because there was a beginning and will be an end, and a passage of time between them.

Time out; where do you get this information? Since when does the passage of time end?

Even in it's unfathomable vastness, it's the universe's finite nature which indicates an infinite creator. Contemplate the magnificent intricacy and nearly infinite vastness of the cosmos for a moment.

Perhaps I was not clear: by "universe", I mean everything ever, paraverses, demiverses, and the like included. The universe is quite infinite, I assure you, if only in that its potential is unlimited. And, being active hands in that potential, our imaginations are also, in that sense, unlimited, in the same, albeit highly simplified way that a wrench can be used to...wrench...and infinite number of nuts and bolts.

Infinite God created that by speaking it into existence. Although, one wonders if it is only described that way to make sense to us who use language and make things within finite time. Personally I don't think God would need to speak or take 6 days to create the universe... more likely he would simply willed it into existence. That is what infinite is... time and the universe can only exist within it. Another possible theory I thought of was that time/universe was created from outside of time, so 6 days may just be a way of simply breaking down the creation of the universe, the world, the entirety of human existence, and a 7th "day" of rest may be post-apocalypse existence that extends forever into infinitude.

I feel no disagreement with this.

Re: question about John 14:6

I believe that Jesus was speaking definitively, that were it not for Him there would be no retribution. It is to say, our fellowship with God is severed, and God being the giver of life, the outcome of such is spiritual death. To redeem us, Jesus maintained perfect fellowship with God, became the sin the severes our fellowship with God, and then He died, and being sin, the sin died with him. At that point the consequence of spiritual death (the "law") had been fulfilled. Then, He rose from the dead without sin.

This can be quite difficult to wrap your head around because you can think about it for the rest of your life and still not fully grasp the meaning. In fact, it means everything.

God created the law for our good, it was broken without any way for us to reconcile ourselves, then Jesus fulfilled reconciliation on our behalf and provided a way for us to be in fellowship with God. Jesus was God incarnate man who perfectly reflected God's truth. Jesus was the means by which our existence was created, as this fellowship with God was severed we are faced with spiritual death were it not for payment by Jesus' death, but more importantly the subsequent spiritual life granted in his resurrection.

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not understood it". This speaks of the power of the resurrection of Christ. I know much of the focus is on Jesus' crucifixion, but what's truly mysterious and amazing is Jesus' resurrection, for this reason:

God creates human life. God provides law for the greatest good of human life. God fully pays the consequence of the law when human ignores it and in doing so fulfills His own law. Lastly, God provides spiritual life and regeneration beyond "mere" reconciliation. To understand this is to know distinctly that Jesus not only paid the consequence of sin but overcame the consequence that is spiritual death. Despite his humble life, Jesus was still all-powerful God so this is a powerful implication that through faith in what Jesus did you will simply know why we are absolutely freed from sin and will no longer be enslaved to it. This is the truth which sets you free, the way back into fellowship with God, and reconnecting with the spiritual life which that provides for an eternity.

It's Jesus' resurrection which I think best illustrates that God provides literally everything we need regardless of what we chose to do with it. It is things like this which allude to God's infinite love, and the reason why we can take Jesus at his word when he says "do not be afraid"... even when we don't believe it, feel it, understand it, or most of all act in a way as if we want it, God love for us remains totally fulfilling in a eternal context.


...I often struggle to fathom it. Imagine if your father instructed you for your own good, then when you didn't listen, he interceded and suffered on your behalf, and afterwards welcomed you to be close again so you could continue in a way that was best for your own good. Bah, I'm rambling, but the more I understand this love the more I realize there's nothing like it on earth.

No particular disagreements here either; it's a new record!

Naw, but seriously, thanks.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

God... If you're out there... Please give me the strength of self-control so that I may not rage in this thread...

- Amen.

Hardly, but this only proves my point further.

How does my statement prove your point further?

Care to tell me why? I was only making clear how I define the relevant terms, in the interests of more efficient communication.

You are redefining words in order to prove your point.

One could also argue that a robot eye has the ability to perceive, whilst a robot arm hardly has the ability to choose without the intervention of a human mind, and then only with a certain repetition. I'm talking "inclination" as in "preference spawned from emotion", though I will not dispute that God is self-aware.

Neither the eye or the arm are sentient though because neither part has a conciousness/is self-aware; this was part of my point. Just clearing that up. Since your no longer disputing that god is not sentient, that's that then.

"Define", not "redefine", and I'm just speculating at this point. Which do you think it is?

No, I meant redefine. You're changing gods qualities.

The quote was the literal "Assassin's Creed", actually, and wasn't in reference to the Piece of Eden in particular.

I'm not going to debate this.

Also, like pretty much every such quote, it means what we think it means, so no: you don't get to say "No".

No, it has a specific meaning. What if thought it meant bananas on Pluto, would it then mean bananas on Pluto? No.

 

[Iriohm]

Imagination is not infinite... Firstly, its length of existence is limited to the lifespan of the one who is doing the imagining as a mind is required for this action. Secondly, the human brain itself is limited; you cannot imagine, in outstanding detail, one billion seperate red balls. It's impossible because it exceeds the minds processing ability.

I take it you don't think the afterlife exists. That's sad.

Also, imagination is both finite and infinite in the sense that a cube is finite, until you add time to the equation. Then, the cube exists from the point it was created onward, forever and ever (this is a very well built cube). Even if time is turned off somehow, the cube will still have existed at one point, nothing can change that, and will live on in the memories of whoever encountered it, including God.

No, you didn't win. You just think you did but you're not sure.

I am sure, actually; we both did.

What the fuck? Infinity does not require the finite and light does not require darkness. Fail.

Truth vs. Fact, MagnificentMind, Truth vs. Fact. Without darkness, how would you define light? Without the finite, how would you define the infinite?

This only makes sense if you're talking about subjective good or evil. Objective good or evil is absolute.

I'm quite sure there is no objective "good or evil".

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

I take it you don't think the afterlife exists. That's sad.

Indeed.

Also, imagination is both finite and infinite in the sense that a cube is finite, until you add time to the equation. Then, the cube exists from the point it was created onward, forever and ever (this is a very well built cube). Even if time is turned off somehow, the cube will still have existed at one point, nothing can change that, and will live on in the memories of whoever encountered it, including God.

GAHAHA?! So an object outside of time is finite instead of infinite? I'm not even going to go any further into this statement. It's all nonsense.

Truth vs. Fact, MagnificentMind, Truth vs. Fact. Without darkness, how would you define light? Without the finite, how would you define the infinite?

They do not require each other regardless of their definitions. Kthnx.

I'm quite sure there is no objective "good or evil".

Have you heard about two fellows called God and Satan?

 

[Iriohm]

God... If you're out there... Please give me the strength of self-control so that I may not rage in this thread...

- Amen.

I'd like to ask for this too.

How does my statement prove your point further?

In that you're speaking in facts, while I'm speaking in truths, which, for some reason, has resulted in you not getting what I'm saying about the difference between fact and truth.

You are redefining words in order to prove your point.

And you are making false accusations to prove yours. "Truth" can mean truth (hard fact), or it can mean Truth (capital letters). I, as I just said, was merely telling everyone which definition I was using.

Neither the eye or the arm are sentient though because neither part has a conciousness/is self-aware; this was part of my point. Just clearing that up. Since your no longer disputing that god is not sentient, that's that then.

That's true: I'm not disputing that God is self-aware. He's probably sentient as well, just not in the sense that we're sentient.

No, I meant redefine. You're changing gods qualities.

Define: to describe the nature or qualities of.
Redefine: to define again or differently.

Slight difference in meaning there; the key lies in the words "trying" and "Speculation". I'm not trying to change his/her meaning, but am instead speculating on possibilities in the absence of factual information.

I'm not going to debate this.

Good.

No, it has a specific meaning. What if thought it meant bananas on Pluto, would it then mean bananas on Pluto? No.

The meanings are subjective. Often relatively similar, granted, but they still differ subtly from person to person. If you thought it meant "Bananas on Pluto", then, for you, it would mean "Bananas on Pluto".

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

This isn't worth the effort. Good day.

 

[Iriohm]

;GAHAHA?! So an object outside of time is finite instead of infinite? I'm not even going to go any further into this statement. It's all nonsense.

It's an analogy! The cube has finite, definable boundaries in the first three dimensions, but adding a fourth dimension increases its potential. It could enjoy such novelties as being in a different place five minutes from now, existing in past tense, or in the opposite, far into the future, potentially to the ends of time, if time even has an end, and then, once again, living on in memory if it's destroyed during that period. Do you see now?

They do not require each other regardless of their definitions. Kthnx.

They do if you want to define them in any conceivable sense.

Have you heard about two fellows called God and Satan?

I have heard of Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln for opposing slavery. "Sic semper tyrannis", "Thus always to tyrants" is what he said whilst doing so, indicating that he thought Lincoln was a tyrant (a description commonly defined as evil), and that he was killing him in the hopes of protecting some perceived right of his (slavery). The Bible (which you're obviously using as a source of information) does not specify if slavery is wrong, nor does it necessarily say that killing in defense of the self or others is wrong. John Wilkes Booth was probably a hero to some people, and very much in the right, but does that make him right?

 

[Iriohm]

If you found God, what would happen?

The world would explode. Probably.

 

[Iriohm]

This isn't worth the effort. Good day.

*sighs*

Thank you for being the bigger man. Or woman. Whichever.

*short pause*

That doesn't sound patronizing, I hope...

 

[Risen]

If you found God, what would happen?

I'd kill him and become god myself.

 

[Ginkgo]

I'd kill him and become god myself.

Then there would still be God.

 

[promethathustra]

God renews in each generation!

"I am always with you." Jesus

The word...(i.e. knowledge,understanding and wisdom) always becomes flesh! A resulting new cultus is always considered but not always wise...thus the debate is allowed to continue with only slight changes from the original...ever so slight in some generations. And good and evil? Words only...just words from a perspective...fear not!

 

[Helios]

This thread is yet another reason for NFs to leave the difficult subjects to NTs.

 

[Totenkindly]

I understand full well the importance of such people, and I meant no offense. I didn't mean "drones" in the sense that a lot of people are them, but in the sense that everyone has a little "drone" in them. Everyone is individual, yet also interconnected, and when you get right down to it (and take the body away), where one person ends and another begins becomes a very vague line. What are we, but a governing force over a collection of thoughts, memories, and ideas, many of which remain relatively similar, regardless of who they belong to. You see that chair, and I see that chair; it's the same sensation. It's what we as individuals do with that sensation that counts.

Thanks for the clarification

As much as I appreciate you protecting the masses, that is not at all what I said, or meant to say. I'm not insulting people, or looking down on them, or dismissing them as inferior, or anything even remotely like that; I am simply describing how things work, from a purely objective standpoint, in an imagined reality by using my own as reference. I apologize again for giving that impression.

Honestly, I don't need or want an apology.
It was meant as feedback to help you better tailor your message.

I'm less concerned about protecting the masses, more concerned about you simply realizing how this sort of phrasing will no doubt come across with less-forgiving recipients.

I've been bitten in the bottom before and derailed my own message by not considering my word choices better, at times.

So if it's NOT what you intend, then it might be a pitfall you will want to avoid.

An argument I've heard before, and one I don't believe, though I can respect that you do.

I'm not sure I do, actually.
I'm just presenting the opposing argument of what you suggested.
I'm not sure which one is more true.

On the other hand, this rather ties in to the previous bit. We, as members of this mess of creation called the world, are all a part of God's mind. However, my point is, if we're all sentient, are we all, in some way, "God", in the same sense that the more sentient characters in my paracosm (imagined world; I just learned that word) are me, recognized and named as aspects of myself?

Yeah. Fine, I do get that bit. And there are various philosophies built on that sort of concept.

It is difficult to explain; like the Holy Trinity, actually, but if this is true, then, and I mean this in the humblest possible sense, we decide what God thinks, and God decides what we think, and those distinctions are too close together to remain separate.

No, I don't see it as difficult, it's pretty basic to me. It just wasn't clear in your original paragraph, it was much better explained here.

Which is why I chose Philosophy and Spirituality.

Tiring. The way I see it, Jesus himself was a radical at the time, full to the brim with new ideas that contradicted what many people thought. I ask myself sometimes whether, if he came back now, anyone would recognize him.

Probably not. I'm pretty sure much of the Church wouldn't. There's a lot in common between the Pharisees of old (they considered themselves the ones who were "serious about God," they felt like the last bastions of purity amid the seething wastelands of a declining immoral culture, and they felt that by keeping themselves apart and living a holy life, they could redeem things) and large sects of Christianity today.

And what did the Pharisees call Jesus? They suggested he was the son of the devil, for one. He even hung out with the undesirables that made a person unclean. Certainly not someone who was going to restore or fulfill the faith.

 

[Iriohm]

This thread is yet another reason for NFs to leave the difficult subjects to NTs.

That was rather callous of you to say. We NFs bring valuable insight to the table.

 

[Iriohm]

Thanks for the clarification

You're quite welcome.

Honestly, I don't need or want an apology.
It was meant as feedback to help you better tailor your message.

Well, I apologized anyway. It never hurts to be sure.

I'm less concerned about protecting the masses, more concerned about you simply realizing how this sort of phrasing will no doubt come across with less-forgiving recipients.

I've been bitten in the bottom before and derailed my own message by not considering my word choices better, at times.

So if it's NOT what you intend, then it might be a pitfall you will want to avoid.

I suppose I kind of got that. Thanks.

I'm not sure I do, actually.
I'm just presenting the opposing argument of what you suggested.
I'm not sure which one is more true.

If that lengthy argument I just had made anything clear, it's that there is no truth.

Yeah. Fine, I do get that bit. And there are various philosophies built on that sort of concept.

Are there? Which ones?

No, I don't see it as difficult, it's pretty basic to me. It just wasn't clear in your original paragraph, it was much better explained here.

Then you're lucky, or perhaps I am. I'm glad you understand.

Probably not. I'm pretty sure much of the Church wouldn't. There's a lot in common between the Pharisees of old (they considered themselves the ones who were "serious about God," they felt like the last bastions of purity amid the seething wastelands of a declining immoral culture, and they felt that by keeping themselves apart and living a holy life, they could redeem things) and large sects of Christianity today.

And what did the Pharisees call Jesus? They suggested he was the son of the devil, for one. He even hung out with the undesirables that made a person unclean. Certainly not someone who was going to restore or fulfill the faith.

...and that is a dangerous state to be in. Look at this guy here.

 

[Ginkgo]

This thread is yet another reason for NFs to leave the difficult subjects to NTs.

Yes, because it is only rational to judge entire demographics by a few individuals within them.