posted
"Now these things may add up to a confusing and contradictory picture of Star Trek. That doesn't mean that Star Trek never existed. People who have watched Star Trek, who have a personal experience of Star Trek are able to put them in perspective."
No, it doesn't mean Star Trek never existed.
And I'd certainly agree that the Bible holds much that was originally based on historic events, and the very same types of things you talk about occured. I already am aware of that.
But showing the existence of "God", particularly a god with the specific attributes you give to it, requires a bit more than fractures stories, particularly when we see, from tall tales and the like, that stories get less realistic as time goes on, and reach ever closer to fantasy. Take the story of John Henry, and how that blew out of proportion from a truly impressive event to something superhuman in a quite surprisingly short time.
Obviously stuff happened. But based upon what do you hold that the events had anything to do with a supreme being?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for gravity: I don't know all the specifics as I haven't seen the math, and anyway we obviously don't know how it works precisely, since singularities tend to make little sense with our current theories.
But regardless, gravity is not a force in and of itself, but is caused by mass bending spacetime.
Do I know precisely why mass bends spacetime? Not perfectly, but I doubt it was magic, and we've certainly progressed from understanding from the time when we didn't know anything about what caused gravity.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A god is supernatural by definition and conscious by common usage. You aren't talking about a god if you aren't talking about the supernatural.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How self-righteous of you. I think the reason I have faith in gravity and in the fact that is not magic is because it appears to have a significant say in what happens in the universe, while i'm disinclined to begin trusting something i've never seen create any influence on the universe.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The only difference is that you believe in it. The god you worship has specific properties, just like all the other myriad gods man has created.
I associate your god with the supernatural because the Christian god is spoken of as supernatural, as doing supernatural things, in creating supernatural realms like heaven and hell, hanging out with supernatural entities like angels, doing supernatural things like causing a virgin woman to give birth to a male son (impossible even in parthenogenesis) and the whole lot of it.
At least, that's the Christian god. Perhaps you believe in something different, which is not unlikely, statistically speaking.
So: Why does gravity work? I spoke as to why: Mass bends spacetime. Why does mass bend spacetime? I don't know precisely, but I'd suggest you ask someone who works in that field. My knowledge is limited, and I don't know calculus, much less more complicated math, so I don't know.
Or, if you're talking about some metaphysical "why", well, I don't know precisely. Perhaps it's random. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes, perhaps something outside the universe caused the rules of the universe to be the way they are, perhaps it's the only way that's physically possible, there are a hundred, a thousand, a million possible reasons why, many of which don't necessarily need a god to make them work.
MAybe there is no reason. Maybe we won't ever know. I don't know "why" in some kind of ultimate way, and it hasn't been proven that there even is a why.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This depends on what is natural and what is supernatural.
If "natural" is whatever occurs by a process that can be replicated by humans to examine and test, which constitutes science, then God is supernatural because he cannot be tested. It "natural" is whatever occurs due to consistencies in the functions and laws of the Universe, then God is likely natural, as he is not free to do whatever random thought might occur, but he will not want to do what is against his nature. Therefore, we can say God consists of laws that add up to a nature that can be described: God is benevolent, all-powerful, reluctant to intervene against his creation's ideas, and lonely. This is the nature of God, therefore, God does not supercede nature, but rather IS nature.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: How self-righteous of you. I think the reason I have faith in gravity and in the fact that is not magic is because it appears to have a significant say in what happens in the universe, while i'm disinclined to begin trusting something i've never seen create any influence on the universe.
How is that self-righteous? There is a big difference between one definition of god (superhuman being with powers) and what I mean when I say God.
0Megabyte, I am not suggesting that you need to be concerned with ultimate "whys". I am suggesting that there is wonder in even ordinary things like gravity working.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: he is not free to do whatever random thought might occur,
Do you mean he IS? and chooses not to?
Boots, I thought you were indignantly retorting that you were not referring to "just any god" but "YOUR god" as in, saying "well not those darn hindu gods, but my christian one."
I thought you were being more... rude than you were.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think God has the capability to do ANYTHING, simply because his nature governs his choices. Of course, if God revoked a certain aspect of his nature, which he probably can do if he is able to construct a new aspect (i.e. Jesus), he could change the way that works, but pretty much rule #1 concerning God is that he sticks to his promises. Revoking that would contradict God's nature and therefore break a promise, which God cannot do. So God chose to be in a state of not-really omnipotence, but retain the power to make everything go his way no matter what anyone else says. (What I mean to say is: There are things God cannot do, but there is nothing that can go against God's will.) God has a consistent pattern that he generally follows, and this suggests that he sticks to his nature even more than people do to their own personalities.
So I mean he is NOT free to do whatever random thought might occur BECAUSE he chooses not to.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Oh...no. I wasn't. My fault for not being clearer. For me, "God" is bigger than, Jehovah, or Vishnu, or Osiris. All of those "god" stories are people trying to express a personal relationship with "God". I believe that the Christian stories express that relationship in the best way because of Jesus, but there is certainly truth about God to be found elsewhere.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ah...You're right. I am not talking about a god. I am talking about God. Entirely different.
God is a god by common usage. While it's fine for you to use your own definition in a case like this, you should make that clear in your posts. It's rather hypocritical to get upset at people for misunderstanding your posts when your using an uncommon definition.
EDIT: Naturally I post right after you do Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I wasn't upset. I don't agree though that it is an uncommon definition. Most of the people with whom I discuss God understand it the same way I do.
I generally make the distinction by the use of a capital G. If it is problematic, I am happy, for the purposes of this discussion, to refer to God as the Divine. I have done that before. Would that help?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that I know what you're saying that's not necessary. Anyways, I generally use God with a capital G when talking about the Christian/Jewish god so that's probably why I found it confusing.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think kmb is saying that God cannot be held within our understanding. We can understand some of God's nature- but certainly not at all, maybe not even most.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God is bigger than our understanding of God. Does that make sense?
So you've defined god in such a way that god can't be understood, and therefore can't be defined...so why should we go with your definition?
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like a contradiction.
I second Javert's critique here, but I'm also curious exactly how one comes to understand that "God is bigger than our understanding of God." So my answer would be no, it doesn't make sense, not to me anyway (not that you were asking me, but there you go).
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...do you find it far-fetched that the Creator of the universe, the infinite source of everything, the loving and creative spirit that is present in all of creation and in all of us, that has and always will be, that moves the stars and shapes the mountains - more importantly designed the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that is the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that being/force/energy/ that still loves us intimately and desires to be with us, that God is beyond our ability to entirely comprehend?
I find that pretty reasonable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hmmm...do you find it far-fetched that the Creator of the universe, the infinite source of everything, the loving and creative spirit that is present in all of creation and in all of us, that has and always will be, that moves the stars and shapes the mountains - more importantly designed the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that is the natural laws that move the stars and shape the mountains, that being/force/energy/ that still loves us intimately and desires to be with us, that God is beyond our ability to entirely comprehend?
I find that pretty reasonable.
True. But if it really was beyond our ability to entirely comprehend, why would we be assuming it's existence in the first place?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's possible in the way that anything is possible, but I don't think it's necessarily reasonable, certainly not probable. What are your reasons for believing this is true rather than not?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of reasons, I guess. Most importantly, I think that God reaches out to us.
Not always through religion; in fact, sometimes religion can be an obstacle, but God reaches out to us.
Maybe because we want to know who to thank?
edit: that was originally to Javert, but I suppose it answers both. And, really, you can get your head around "infinite"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, first of all, don't you see how circular your reasons are (at least as you've presented them here), particularly as an answer to Javert's question?
As for your question, theoretically, yes. Infinite is a concept defined by us in the first place. If anything, it poses problems for the existence of any god, including your God (although, to be perfectly honest, I'm still not entirely sure what your distinction is).
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes. If I believe in a God that is by nature "bigger" than I can understand than of course I am not going to completely understand God.
So I should pretend God is smaller so that I can understand it?
Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I just want to make clear what it is that I believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I just want to make clear what it is that I believe."
Is there a difference? Honestly, I want you to want to convince me. It means you have a stake in this, that you truly want me to understand what you believe.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Convince you of what? "Stake" in what? This conversation? Your faith? I have plenty of "stake" in my faith; I have very little in yours. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to whatever you want to believe. If you are happy, I see no reason you should change.
As for understanding what it is that believe, I don't necessarily think that is possible given the amount of time I am willing to invest. I spend months teaching people an incomplete version of what I believe.
I will settle for you understanding some of the more common errors you are making about not just my beliefs, but those of many people. That would be plenty for an internet conversation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I disagree, obviously. And I think most of those who contribute to this particular forum would disagree with you as well. We Hatrackers pride ourselves in our ability, dedication, and passion to go beyond the boundaries of a typical internet conversation and to actually learn something from one another, to gain a better understanding of varying perspectives, to even be willing to change our minds in light of compelling enough evidence. Or at least that's what I feel the general consensus is. Perhaps this perception of mine is flawed.
At any rate, I think this discussion, atleast with you, has reached an end. Of course, it does remain open should you ever feel compelled to take it up, or to participate if it shows up in future conversations. I hope that you will. In the meantime, please understand that it is not my intention, nor do I believe it is the intention of others here, to show you up or expose your flaws to the world. My conviction that you are most likely wrong about one belief or another does not limit my ability or desire to understand an alternate perspective or to have a civilized debate concerning said perspective, nor does it compromise my ability to change my mind. But also keep in mind that at the same time I will not back down from my own understanding without compelling evidence. And your (as of yet) unjustified claim that an interpreted passage of the bible as evil is misunderstood, among other assertions, simply isn't compelling in the least.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what have you learned in this boundary bending discussion, roll? It's funny how it's always the other person's mind that needs to be opened.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mind certainly does need to be opened more. I realize this more and more all the time, especially on this forum because I can go back and read exactly what I've said. A prime example of this is a discussion I participated in well over a year ago on the topic of "egotheism". Go ahead and search for it. I'm rather embarrassed of my ignorance in that thread, but there it is. I learned from that, though, and that's what's important. I'm capable of realizing that I can be wrong about something I think I completely understand.
As for what I've learned in this particular discussion? Well, not as much as I'd have wanted. I learned something I think, even a little about boots' perspective. Not a whole lot, maybe not even anything significant, but it's something.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rollainm, it is really not my place to try to convert you. Nor would it fall within my understanding of the terms of services. And I feel no need to do so.
However, if you feel a need, if you are looking for something and just need more information, if you are interested in being converted, I am willing to spend some with you in exploring this further.
Feel free to PM me and we can talk about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The evolved philosophy of the majority of the members of this forum that I'm talking about has little to do with the ToS. If you don't feel the same way, then that's fine. I can respect that, even though it can certainly make some discussions a bit more difficult.
Obviously I'm not interested in "being converted". I think you know that. I am interested in learning different perspectives, particularly those as intriguing as yours seems to be. You say there are many who believe in God the way you do, and I believe you, but to me this is something new.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would have been surprised, but then I'm not really sure what you are asking when you ask me to "convince" you? How is trying to change your mind about the existance of God, not trying to convert you?
I'm happy to explain whatever I can, given that the explainations are, by the nature of the subject, going to be only the tip of the iceberg, but I think I need some clarification of what you are asking.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The god you worship has specific properties...
I think you'll find that, for Kate, this is not true. The more you poke her God, the squishier it is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now these things may add up to a confusing and contradictory picture of Star Trek. That doesn't mean that Star Trek never existed. People who have watched Star Trek, who have a personal experience of Star Trek are able to put them in perspective.
by recognizing it as a fictional work, though.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
You may be missing the point of the analogy. I wasn't equating Star Trek with Scripture; I was equating the extra stuff people had written about Star Trek with Scripture.
Tom, that's better. Depending on how you define "squishy" of course, but better. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did Christ not say that looking after a woman in lust was the same as adultery?
That's one example. Our brains, our bodies, are designed to do such a thing.
If doing so is a sin, and human beings, as it has been shown, do so due to their very design, then we are designed sinful. Thus, what I said above.
My husband used to wonder at the "He can't be serious" attitude the guys at church generally had for this passage.
I've thought a lot about the idea of Original Sin. I know Mormons generally just say we don't believe in it, but we also believe all sin and require redemption.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
