@3017amen
Reply to 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
I am sorry I am being so insistent, but it is still not clear to me what your definition of god is; so, if I asked you: describe to me the god which/whose existence you are trying to defend. What would you say?
Quoting 3017amen
That's what I read in the Christian Bible. I mean, that's one interpretation, no?
I am sorry I am being so insistent, but it is still not clear to me what your definition of god is; so, if I asked you: describe to me the god which/whose existence you are trying to defend. What would you say?
Comments (18)
No problem. In a word, Jesus. The Jesus that is portrayed in the Christian Bible.
It's starting to sound like you might be an Agnostic and not an Atheist, just a hunch.
I believe there is an origin. I also believe that given certain conditions, you would be able to know all about the origin. I do not believe in the supernatural, intelligent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god of the bible, and I do not believe either that the character of jesus portrayed in the bible is god.
What makes jesus god?
Quoting Daniel
There is the idea that a God exists in three modes: God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit.
I'll be happy to provide for discursive discussion, but have the rules changed? Is this a private forum of some kind?
It seems like the moderator's made this a private discussion of some sort...as I cannot find it on the public-open section...
Okay, got it, thanks. The Lounge is fine, since this seems to be more of an informal query on your part.
1. The simple answer as to why Jesus is God is the same reason why it is believed that George Washington was the first POTUS.
2. Regarding the Omni-stuff; no exceptions taken. I think it was Anselm who decided that one. And those after him, Aquinas and other's, critiqued it.
3. Your choice on the historical character of Jesus, and that he was/was not the human model of God.
Pretty simple stuff.
If someone asked me to describe why certain dog is considered a dog, I would say: it is considered a dog because it has fur, four legs, a tail, a wet nose, a stout, canine teeth, paws, it barks, it was born from another dog, it walks on its four legs, etc. I would continue until I have described the dog to the best of my knowledge.
Now I ask you, why you consider the christian god a god. I don't want to know the opinions of Aquinas or Anselm since I am not having a discussion with them nor about them. I want to know YOUR (and believe me, I cannot stress "your" any more) view of the christian god, and I would love it if you could literally list the attributes that you think make the christian god a god. Again, think I am not from this world, and that I have never heard of Jesus, or God, or religion.
I have no idea what you are trying to imply in (1). Are you saying Jesus is God because people believe Jesus to be God? (By the way, I am not a citizen of the United States of America nor I know its history)
About (2); so, you don't believe God is all that omni stuff? What exceptions are you not taking?
Is (3) answering the question, what makes Jesus God?
Interesting. Does this suggest that there is a subjective truth at work?
Quoting Daniel
I'm not following that. From history, Jesus was known to be a man. Describing his physical, objective attributes, as you have in describing a dog's, would be a bit redundant I think.
Quoting Daniel
I am saying that objectively, he was recorded in history as being both man and God. I have no problem with that interpretation. George Washington was recorded in history as being a man.
Quoting Daniel
No I don't. Who knows the mind of God and/or man? For instance, do you know the nature of your existence? Of course not. Why should this be any different?
Quoting Daniel
This is called simple volitional existence. In other words, you have made that choice. End of story right?
Quoting 3017amen
Off course, what you experience is not what I experience. We do not occupy the same space. As a consequence, what you think is different to what I think. Our conceptions may be very similar, but never the same; hence, I ask for your definition of God, so that I can make an idea of the thing you believe in and compare it to my idea of God.
Quoting 3017amen
Then describe to me its non-physical, non-objective attributes. I mean, if it exists, it must have at least one attribute other than "it is Jesus".
Quoting 3017amen
How do you (you, 3017amen-I am not asking anyone else but you) perceive God? Or are you trying to argue in favour of the existence of something you have never experienced?
Quoting 3017amen
Are you saying Jesus, in the condition of human, chose to be a god, and then became a god?
Indeed. What other implications does that have in phenomenology and existentialism, you think? Alternatively, in cognitive science, William James & Maslow (to name a few) had studied the 'religious' experience quite extensively. While it is indeed true that truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation we can still share similar experiences. And similar to the NDE, many individuals have been consistent in their reports of same. Personally, my 'religious' experiences have been very similar to what James and Maslow have studied/reported.
And so logically, to make the leap to God as being causational, is arguably that foregoing subjective truth which exceeds verbal formulation; ineffable as one would say. A knowing nonetheless. Or, if you prefer, a Kantian type of intuition.
Quoting Daniel
His consciousness is metaphysical, as is ours. As a rhetorical question, are we able to fully explain consciousness?
Quoting Daniel
Correct. I cannot argue for your experience because it's not mine to argue. And specifically, as mentioned, Jesus also had a consciousness, how should I explain that? Otherwise cosmologically, much like space and time itself, God remains a mystery, as it should be. Should one take a different position here?
Quoting Daniel
No. I'm saying you made that choice not to embrace the concept, remember?
How can you argue in favour of the existence of something that you can't describe with your own words, not even in the most basic way?
Is that another way of saying that you are in some fashion frustrated with my answers or they are not what you want to hear? I thought I provided sceintific references to your questions, which dovetail my personal experiences. Not sure what your point is there.
What don't you understand?
We are debating the existence of something. To be able to debate the existence of something, one must be able to talk about that something; one must be able to describe the experiences one has had of that something. So far, you have not written a single sentence in which you describe your experience of God. You have said that your god is the god of christians, the god of the bible, the god of Aquinas; I do not know what kinds of gods those gods are, and I am not going on Google to look them up because, as I said, I am having this debate with you and not with Google or anyone else.
What arguments in favour of the existence of God do you have?
Understood. I posited the ineffable, the phenomenal, the experiential.
Quoting Daniel
If I formulate words sufficient to say I saw God and he spoke to me, would you believe it?
Quoting Daniel
Sure, and that's okay. A simple illustration of parent-child or student-teacher relationships provide for the distinctions between knowing and not knowing. You can read about the religious experience or you can put yourself in that position to have a religious experience yourself.
Once again, if I told you I had a religious experience which I have had many, and/or if I had a revelatory-phenomenal or ineffable experience, or even If I said I saw God and he spoke to me, how would that compare to researching cognitive science about the same, as I've suggested? Wouldn't the cognitive science hold more weight? I would like to think so. So that's why I suggested that research.
My experiences, being just one of many, only serve to provide for a subjective truth that exists within all of us. And that 'all of us', is what I'm trying to get you to understand/focus on.
Quoting Daniel
Cosmology, metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics logic , existentialism and epistemology/conscious existence.
All of those domains at some juncture, posit God as the standard axiomatic criterion.