Welcome Guest!
Thoughts? From people with non-sheeple brains
- Thread starter Rebel 6
- Start date
StriperrHunterr
Senior Member
Unless you're equating Quaxicoatl, or Quetzacoatl, to the Christian God, not likely.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Not equating anything. Just pointing out that gods existence is not contingent on what people say.
I could talk about God, but call him Jim, would I be talking about God?
My point is that God either exists or he don't. It's not a choose your own adventure and somebody gets it right. In such a scenario, god wouldn't be god because his existence is contingent on what he supposedly created.
StriperrHunterr
Senior Member
Which would be all well and good if we only had monotheistic religions.
I get what you're saying in that if God exists, or if gods exist, then they don't rely on our belief for that existence.
I don't know if Jim is God, is he? That's in the eye of the beholder and I doubt polytheists would say that their gods are merely different personal characteristics of one all powerful god any more than monotheists would say that their one God could just be an amalgam of other lesser gods. Some would be open minded and consider it, most would reject you politely, still others would belittle you for even suggesting such a thing.
Israel
BANNED
Every man follows his god. And speaks the words his god has put in him, and does the deeds he sees of his god.
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
So it is all a personal thing?
Or is The One True God responsible for me and my thoughts and me expressing those thoughts here?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
You could talk about God, you could call him Jim but Which god are you talking about?
Is it the one you just so happen to believe in? Or have you been able to discredit all the other gods that are currently worshiped and show us that there is one god, he is the best or only god and he is the god of the bible? Can you please show us there is a god to discuss?
Otherwise assumptions and assertions, or faith as you call it, leave the door wide open for all the gods.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
If you go back and read the post I was responding to with that sentence I think it will be a little more clear.
I do believe we "have" a God. You don't. Either way, the God we "have" is not impacted by the God we want.......he either is or he ain't.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
If I am completely wrong, and the Vishnu folks got it right, God is still God. If we are discussing the creator of everything, well, that's God. Anything created could not fit that criteria, so we are left with only one option.
If I steal Ambush' lucky crank bait.....and presume it is the omnipotent being in the universe, that does not make it God.
But, if we all sit down, in 100 different languages, and all, at the same time, discuss the omnipotent creator of the universe, we are all discussing God.......'cause, isn't that what God is?
If God exists, he is everybody's God.....that doesn't mean everybody's right (religion), it just means he is who he is regardless of what we think of him.
See above.
And, why are you taking shots at faith? It's a well defined term, and very applicable to how it is being used in this conversation.
Last edited:
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
That's an interesting concept. When anyone talks of God they are talking about the same God as all believers of God, they just don't realize it. They might be explained his attributes or name wrong but he is still the same God because after all, there is only one God.
While that could be true and all God believers could somehow unite in a common belief of God against non-believers, Some of those God fearing believers don't believe in Jesus. They don't have any advantage over the Atheist.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
I think it depends on what they are saying. It does not make every religion right. It just means that God is what he is. "Which God" strikes me as a funny question, it's almost like we put 'em all in a line up and choose which one gets to be the creator of the universe.
Perhaps the better approach is to define what we mean by God. There have been lots of false gods.....golden calfs are a good example, which are created, and don't fit the definition. So, the golden calf isn't in the running to be God in the first place.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I think it depends on what they are saying. It does not make every religion right. It just means that God is what he is. "Which God" strikes me as a funny question, it's almost like we put 'em all in a line up and choose which one gets to be the creator of the universe.
Perhaps the better approach is to define what we mean by God. There have been lots of false gods.....golden calfs are a good example, which are created, and don't fit the definition. So, the golden calf isn't in the running to be God in the first place.
Which God would have to be the Father of Jesus or it is the wrong religion according to Christianity. You can't say the Vishnu God is the Father of Jesus.
Now if one believes in some type of Universal religion that requires in only a belief in a Great Creator/Architect, then that is a common bond of just having to believe in a Creator. Many people share this belief.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Too many Gods to count. No way can we narrow it down to one. In order to tell me about one God you have to eliminate the rest. Biblical god a vishnu are equally assumed.
I would have to agree to the assumption that there God(s) in order to go along with your line of reasoning but so far I cannot without evidence of any god, then all the gods, then the best god, then the only god.
Faith..what definition do you want to use?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I think it depends on what they are saying. It does not make every religion right. It just means that God is what he is. "Which God" strikes me as a funny question, it's almost like we put 'em all in a line up and choose which one gets to be the creator of the universe.
Perhaps the better approach is to define what we mean by God. There have been lots of false gods.....golden calfs are a good example, which are created, and don't fit the definition. So, the golden calf isn't in the running to be God in the first place.
Can we sift through all the gods? Narrow em down to a few dozen and go from there. Not pick a few dozen..can some gods that are still worshiped today be eliminated from the running and by what means or reasons?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Can't assume Jesus is divine until we either prove that a god is his father. Until the God of Abraham is somehow able to make the cut....Jesus isn't even part of the equation.
Right off the bat you have asserted Jesus as having a divine father and all the complexity that goes with it.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Christianity believes Jesus is the Son of God (creator of the universe).
Let's get back to Ambush's lucky crankbait......is it in the running to be God? Did it create the universe, or was it created?
Anybody who is worshipping the lucky crankbait is not worshipping God, whether they call it god or not.
Let's forget the word God for a moment......and discuss my old dog.
How many people can come up with some kind-of description of my old dog, not knowing anything about my old dog, and be completely wrong about my dog......and still be talking about my dog?
JB0704
I Gots Goats
bullethead said:
Hebrews 11:1.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Even if your faith is extremely strong in some particular proposition, e.g. that God loves you, it’s important to recognize that there’s a chance you are mistaken. That should be an important part of any respectable road to knowledge. So you are faced with (at least) two alternative ideas: first, that God exists and really does love you and has put that belief into your mind via the road of faith, and second, that God doesn’t exist and that you have just made a mistake.
The problem is that you haven’t given yourself any way to legitimately decide between these two alternatives. Once you say that you have faith, and that it comes directly from God, there is no self-correction mechanism. You can justify essentially any belief at all by claiming that God gave it to you directly, despite any logical or evidence-based arguments to the contrary. This isn’t just nit-picking; it’s precisely what you see in many religious believers. An evidence-based person might reason, “I am becoming skeptical that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving deity, given how much random suffering exists in the world.” But a faith-based person can always think, “I have faith that God exists, so when I see suffering, I need to think of a reason why God would let it happen.”
~Sean Carroll ~
The problem is that you haven’t given yourself any way to legitimately decide between these two alternatives. Once you say that you have faith, and that it comes directly from God, there is no self-correction mechanism. You can justify essentially any belief at all by claiming that God gave it to you directly, despite any logical or evidence-based arguments to the contrary. This isn’t just nit-picking; it’s precisely what you see in many religious believers. An evidence-based person might reason, “I am becoming skeptical that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving deity, given how much random suffering exists in the world.” But a faith-based person can always think, “I have faith that God exists, so when I see suffering, I need to think of a reason why God would let it happen.”
~Sean Carroll ~
