Thread: The Misunderstandings Of God

God contains all possibilities, and could thus be called Universal possibility or the Infinite. Without a principle something can not exist, therefore everything that exists depends on the Infinite, the principle that makes something possible.[/b]

I agree. This proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.[/b]

Please explain to me how the FSM has any relevance to my post. The FSM is a parody of the type of thinking that I am trying to show is a misinterpretation. The FSM was created to point out the faults in teaching intelligent design in schools as an alternative to biological evolution, but it seems to me that you are just throwing it around because I use the word God without any understanding of the difference in the way I am talking about It. I would hope this difference is obvious since it is the only reason for this post's existence. The point of the FSM parody is to show how ridiculous it is to discredit scientific theories in order to uphold a belief that makes no sense and is impossible to prove or disprove.

Originally Posted by spoon

You had a point? I figured you were just avoiding explaining why justifying mass child murder is a good thing.[/b]

Actaully I really didn't feel like it needed explaining. Especially since your mind is already set, so why do I really need to explain anyway? Besides I didn't throw out a question to put you all in an emotional frenzy which seems like that's what happened . I just asked the question to get an answer. Is there any harm in that

No, I really think that explaining why your gawd murders children is kind of important.

By the way, ever notice how hypocritical it is for you to say that we NEED to prove that atheists can love people (which is a ridiculous question to begin with), but you don't need to explain why your gawd MURDERS children?

Originally Posted by Tsen

(which is a ridiculous question to begin with),[/b]

What's so ridiculous about it? It's a legitimate question I'm not asking you to Jump head first off a bridge.

All I want is an Answer.

Besides I did answer the question of the childeren mentioned in 2 Kings. As a matter of fact Others also answered the question. The problem you have is that you are not satisified with the answer. I'm tired of explaining it to you.

Originally Posted by Ne

What's so ridiculous about it? It's a legitimate question I'm not asking you to Jump head first off a bridge.

All I want is an Answer.[/b]

It's a ridiculous question because the basis for asking it (that atheists don't have love) was just something you just made up. Anyone would have trouble proving that they feel love, it's not something any religion (or lack thereof) will make easier. But hey, why not:

I love someone because I feel the thoughts and emotions that I've labeled love. These thoughts and emotions have been shown to be tied into certain chemicals in the brain, so I might just say that 'I love someone because these chemicals get released in the brain'. This isn't exactly true, because the concept of love is something above and beyond chemical stimulus - as can be seen by different societal views of the concept, or even by the difference I see between love for a partner or love for friends or love for family. But, as the genesis of this emotion, these chemicals do seem to do the trick - so I might also say 'I love because I eat chocolate'.

But, as I said, you already mentioned that you were talking shit when you said atheists don't feel any love. So isn't this just a big pointless aside? Whatever problems you find with my answer will be shared by anyone regardless of religion.

Besides I did answer the question of the childeren mentioned in 2 Kings. As a matter of fact Others also answered the question. The problem you have is that you are not satisified with the answer. I'm tired of explaining it to you.[/b]

I didn't see you ever explain why a massacre of children by god should be seen as a good thing. You did give the thumbs up to an incomprehensible post that seemed to say that it was ok because it was 'teaching them to respect a prophet of jehova'. But, they weren't your words so your explanation might not be as appalling. Which, by the way, we're still waiting for.

Originally Posted by syzygy

Please explain to me how the FSM has any relevance to my post.
[/b]

If the FSM doesn't exist as part of god, then god cannot be infinite because you have removed the FSM from it. By your own words you said god contains all possibilities. The FSM is a possibility. god contains all possibilities. Therefore, the FSM is part of god. Since this god exists, the FSM exists as well.

Originally Posted by syzygy

What's so ridiculous about it?
[/b]

How about the fact that we're humans, too, you ignorant moron.

Originally Posted by Mark75

If the FSM doesn't exist as part of god, then god cannot be infinite because you have removed the FSM from it. By your own words you said god contains all possibilities. The FSM is a possibility. god contains all possibilities. Therefore, the FSM is part of god. Since this god exists, the FSM exists as well.
[/b]

I don't know about you, but I would consider the FSM an impossibility, not a possibility. This is to say that it has no real existence since it is contradictory in nature. Being contradictory in nature means it is a veritable nothing and therefore cannot limit anything. For it to have actual existence would be an absurdity pure and simple. Now I know you do not truly believe that the FSM exists, but the way you are using it doesn't make sense in this context. Using it as an example does clear up a point, however, that impossibilities do not limit the Infinite.

Also, this is another discussion, but I think its worth mentioning: it is wrong to think of the Infinite as a determined "whole" made up of parts, for this would mean that the whole is dependent on the parts, when in fact it is the opposite. Any change to the parts does not effect the Infinite because it is completely Whole and has no relation to finite parts. Also, being a "whole" made up of finite parts would make it indefinite, not Infinite.

*edited for clarity

Originally Posted by syzygy

I don't know about you, but I would consider the FSM an impossibility, not a possibility. This is to say that it has no real existence since it is contradictory in nature.
[/b]

(Careful! They're gonna screech at you for saying that something was impossible&#33
How can you be so sure that the FSM is impossible? In what way does the FSM contradict nature?

Originally Posted by syzygy

God is the Infinite:

God contains all possibilities, and could thus be called Universal possibility or the Infinite. Without a principle something can not exist, therefore everything that exists depends on the Infinite, the principle that makes something possible.


God is not a being:

A being is something that is distinct with limits. If God was a being, It would be limited and thus not the Infinite. In this case, there would necessitate something greater than God, creating an infinite chain of higher beings. Since the Infinite contains all beings, it must transcend the distinction between being and non-being.


You cannot know God through analytical knowledge:

Sometimes people attach human ideas to God to make It more understandable. One must remember, however, that any conception one has of God is not complete, and never can be. This includes all anthropomorphism or qualities such as "good" or "judgmental". God only appears this way to the person viewing It, and not in reality. Since the human mind can only understand those things which fall within the limits of its being, it can never truly "know" the Infinite by analytical thought alone. The only way to truly know God is through intuitive knowledge because in reality, there is no difference between "you" and God. All learned knowledge is dependent on space and time for its meaning, and as soon as one transcends those limitations, it has no real meaning.


God alone is real:

There is no independent existence. This can be made clear to oneself by trying to find the self. When one doesn't think about it, they appear to be an individual, but as soon as one goes looking for the individual self, it cannot be found. The idea of separateness is an illusion created by the mind. Everything within the limits of manifestation can only have a relative existence and anything independent of its principle can only have an illusory existence.




*Note: I capitalize Infinite to distinguish it from any thoughts one might have in relation to mathematical infinity, which is only indefinite at best. Infinite in the truest sense of the word is that which has absolutely no limits, and thus contains all. Being "unlimited" within a set of limits, such as a series of numbers, is indefinite because anything which comes from the finite cannot "become" Infinite, it can only continue on indefinitely (beyond our understanding), yet always maintaining the limits which give it existence.

All of this plays in harmony with my own view...

Originally Posted by Neruo

Hahaha, can you spell deluded?

i have wanted to ask a few people on YouTube that question

i cant stand that though. Christians are more loving than Atheists? arnt these the people who condemn homosexuals to an afterlife of unimaginable pain and suffering because of what they do in their private life?