In the Beginning...

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually you cant have no god at all. Just like this universe is expanding the human nature is build around the same dynamics. If you refuse God or gods your own ego or desires are going to be playing that role.

Nonsense. There's no logical flow at all to that statement. If you refuse ducks you're not necessarily playing the role of a duck. If you refuse hpoifjsn then you are not going to be playing the role of a hpoifjsn.

No you cant live without it. Just like I have put it above: if I take your desires and your ego away you are as a human being finnished. What you can do fine without is a certain interpretation of what God is which is fine because while there may be some practical truth there it cant describe/represent the whole.

It's tortured logic. There's no evidence to separate god from hpoifjsn, no variance in anticipated consequences of existence vs not, nothing. You still haven't given a convincing reason people shouldn't buy my troglodyte theory as an alternative.

I dont need to bash your head with rock to send you to vegetative state but I can do the same if I find a way to take away your ego and desires

Yes, damaging brain function will cripple a human being regardless of the method employed in accomplishing it, even a theoretical unknown method causing brain damage is still brain damage.

But the logic again doesn't follow after that.

 

[warpus]

Thats true if God would mean only some silly mental conception but I doubt thats the case.

You can't just sit there and tell me that I have God in my life. That's sort of.. disrespectful, dude.

If I say I don't have God anywhere in or near my life, you've got to take me for my word. Who are you to tell me what's in my life and what isn't?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Fiction = stories. My "desires" are none of your business. I read fiction because it's enjoyable. Just because I read The Handmaid's Tale, that doesn't mean I want to live in the Republic of Gilead. Far from it; that's a horrible place to live. You might like it, though.

I also read nonfiction. My goal is to learn things, when I read nonfiction.

I am talking about your desires in general sense as a sort of psychological reality not in any concreate way but the fact that you are defensive about them would point out that you have strong attachment towards them which is what I was saying before. We need God (aspiration) or desires to function properly.

Apparently you do believe in magic. And no, I'm not going to link anything to explain your experience. I'm not a psychiatrist, and I'm not a doctor. I have no business diagnosing you or offering medical advice, and in fact, doing so is frowned on, on this forum.

So if supernatural natural forces are eventually bound to become completely normal, including turning water into wine, why haven't all the oceans and lakes and rivers turned into wine? By your "logic" all you need is water and time, right?

I'm no wine-maker. I don't even drink the stuff. But I do know that to make it, you need more than just water and a magic spell.

No I dont think I believe in magic much. I believe there is some sort of mechanics even if hidden (occult) behind every manifested phenomena.

I wasnt asking you for medical advice. My point was to show you there is a phenomena which the western medicine is ignorant of and cant deal with.

The example with water turning into wine isnt so simplistic as you try to present it. I was never claiming that the water can be turn to wine by simply aging. Just like when wine is made through the fermentation of grapes in the normal process an occultist needs to have a detailed non-physical knowledge of the inner mechanics to be able to turn water into wine.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You can't just sit there and tell me that I have God in my life. That's sort of.. disrespectful, dude.

If I say I don't have God anywhere in or near my life, you've got to take me for my word. Who are you to tell me what's in my life and what isn't?

I am somebody who believes God isnt just some religious concept or mental phenomena but all manifest and unmanifest reality as well. Now tell me you have no God in your life while I am telling you that you too are a part of God.

 

[Arakhor]

That's hardly a helpful description if you spring it on people without telling them first.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you define god as the universe, you lose the distinction between god and the universe. It provides no useful context from which one can discuss "the beginning", it doesn't even tell us why things look different if you have a god or not, what changes between the two settings.

God = universe is "fun with definitions" at best.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Nonsense. There's no logical flow at all to that statement. If you refuse ducks you're not necessarily playing the role of a duck. If you refuse hpoifjsn then you are not going to be playing the role of a hpoifjsn.

Look you need to allow little more plasticity in your thinking. I am not talking of God as a purely mental phenomena so to take it purely that way is to completely miss the point.

It's tortured logic. There's no evidence to separate god from hpoifjsn, no variance in anticipated consequences of existence vs not, nothing. You still haven't given a convincing reason people shouldn't buy my troglodyte theory as an alternative.

I cant separate God from your mental jugglery but you cant equate it with my conception of God since I base my conception at least partialy on the existent manifested phenomena while yours isnt which is an important detail you perhaps missed.

Yes, damaging brain function will cripple a human being regardless of the method employed in accomplishing it, even a theoretical unknown method causing brain damage is still brain damage.

But the logic again doesn't follow after that.

I dont think Jesus shows much of an ego or personal desires or that Buddha was mentaly crippled, do you?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If you define god as the universe, you lose the distinction between god and the universe. It provides no useful context from which one can discuss "the beginning", it doesn't even tell us why things look different if you have a god or not, what changes between the two settings.

God = universe is "fun with definitions" at best.

There seem to be three forms of God at least: transcendental, universal and the individual soul. Perhaps roughly equal to Father, Son and Holy Ghost of Christianity.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I base my conception at least partialy on the existent manifested phenomena while yours isnt which is an important detail you perhaps missed.

The existent manifested phenomena looks the same either way (IE we can both observe it and use it to make future estimations), and the stuff that supposedly isn't can be covered similarly by any non-falsifiable explanation.

I simply gave an alternative with similar grounding :/.

 

[onejayhawk]

There seem to be three forms of God at least: transcendental, universal and the individual soul. Perhaps roughly equal to Father, Son and Holy Ghost of Christianity.

Even that is a simplification. The Holy Spirit of the Jews was not the same as the Holy Spirit of the Christians. Given the change occasioned by the crucifixion/resurrection that is understandable. Still.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You can't just sit there and tell me that I have God in my life. That's sort of.. disrespectful, dude.

If I say I don't have God anywhere in or near my life, you've got to take me for my word. Who are you to tell me what's in my life and what isn't?

It's like Oprah rudely telling an atheist that she (the atheist) can't possibly be atheist because she's capable of feeling awe.

Apparently that's something only religious people can feel.

I am talking about your desires in general sense as a sort of psychological reality not in any concreate way but the fact that you are defensive about them would point out that you have strong attachment towards them which is what I was saying before. We need God (aspiration) or desires to function properly.

I'm defensive because I'm really sick and tired of all this claptrap telling me that scientific evidence doesn't matter, that I "must" have God in my life/believe in him, or that atheism is a religion (which is untrue). There's even some nut on YouTube who thinks recycling is a religion, and flipped out over a sign at a museum that asked people to recycle their bottles and cans instead of throwing them in the garbage.

Yes, I have aspirations. I have goals. But I don't confuse them with an imaginary being created by humans thousands of years ago to explain things they didn't understand.

No I dont think I believe in magic much. I believe there is some sort of mechanics even if hidden (occult) behind every manifested phenomena.

You just said you believe in the occult. That's magic. You either believe in it or you don't - which is it?

I wasnt asking you for medical advice. My point was to show you there is a phenomena which the western medicine is ignorant of and cant deal with.

You demanded links. And since non-Western medicine frequently includes nonsense such as elephant tusks, rhinoceros horn, bear gall bladders, and other atrocities that are going to render these species extinct if they don't stop paying poachers to kill these animals, I don't have a high opinion of such "medicine."

The example with water turning into wine isnt so simplistic as you try to present it. I was never claiming that the water can be turn to wine by simply aging. Just like when wine is made through the fermentation of grapes in the normal process an occultist needs to have a detailed non-physical knowledge of the inner mechanics to be able to turn water into wine.

To make wine, you need to know botany (to grow the grapes) and chemistry (the ingredients, apparatus, and procedure to make the wine). Occult nonsense and magic are not required.

I am somebody who believes God isnt just some religious concept or mental phenomena but all manifest and unmanifest reality as well. Now tell me you have no God in your life while I am telling you that you too are a part of God.

So that's your definition of God. It's not mine, and you don't get to impose your definition on me.

The universe is the universe. It's not God/god/goddesses/spirits/magic/whatever. God(desses) is just a concept made up by humans to explain things they don't understand.

The universe didn't write the bible. Humans did.

 

[Lexicus]

atheism is a religion (which is untrue).

Strictly speaking, atheism's not a religion- it's too broad. The corresponding argument would be that theism is a religion, which is obviously false.

However, atheism doesn't preclude one from being religious.

 

[warpus]

I am somebody who believes God isnt just some religious concept or mental phenomena but all manifest and unmanifest reality as well. Now tell me you have no God in your life while I am telling you that you too are a part of God.

Use your own definitions of words for your own purposes. I obviously do not believe that God is the universe or anything of the sort, why push that on me?

If you were a vegan and I believed that the Universe is made out of meat, would I continue pushing on you the idea that meat is in your life? Nah I'd be respectful and I wouldn't even go there.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Use your own definitions of words for your own purposes. I obviously do not believe that God is the universe or anything of the sort, why push that on me?

If you were a vegan and I believed that the Universe is made out of meat, would I continue pushing on you the idea that meat is in your life? Nah I'd be respectful and I wouldn't even go there.

If you were to tell me universe is made out of meat I would be lol but if you were serious I would perhaps make an enquiry what makes you say that.

I am not pushing anything on you. Its just a honest discussion of different pov which is necessary for widening of ones knowledge. There is no need to bring some political correctness nonse into this and feel personal about it.

 

[warpus]

I am not pushing anything on you. Its just a honest discussion of different pov which is necessary for widening of ones knowledge. There is no need to bring some political correctness nonse into this and feel personal about it.

You are saying "You can't live without God" to someone who has grown up in an overly religious society and has worked hard to push religion out of his life and has faced prejudice and hardships as a result. The only other people who have ever told me that were people who were trying their hardest to keep me in the grasp of the religion. So when I read that statement, I have to unfortunately lump you in with them.

You have redefined some words so that God = universe, and that's fine, but 99.999999% of people do not use those words like you do. Since we do not agree about the starting axioms here at all, it's impolite to suggest that your conclusion is applicable to anybody but yourself. Since it's applicable only to yourself, and especially since you find yourself in a situation where you are faced with people who have been told "You can't live without God" and had to work hard to get away from all that, of course you are going to get eyerolls and pushback.

"In my opinion God is equal to the universe" is much more prudent to say than: "God is in your life whether you like it or not", which is not how you worded it, but that's how it came out (to me). It comes off as a bit militant maybe, even if that's not what you exactly meant to convey.

It's not a point we need to dwell on for a long time, it's not super important to me or anything. I am not upset or insulted, really, but it just seems like you assume that your rather unorthodox conclusions applies to all, including people who have been through hardships and have had to put up with a lot of bigotry and resentment as a result. IMO if you have an unorthodox and unusual viewpoint, it is fine to state it and state why you feel it is true, but to tell others that your conclusion applies to them is a bit much, especially in this case.

If you were to tell me universe is made out of meat I would be lol

That was a part of my reaction to what you said, so my example has worked well to see you understand how what you wrote came across to me (perhaps).

 

[timtofly]

This is just more pretzel-twisty reasoning to make the Bible "accurate"... I have been hearing this kind of thing since I was a kid. Whenever the Bible is clearly, obviously, wrong, the folks who are obligated to believe that it is infallible will say that its not wrong, its just a metaphor for something else. So everything that is right is literal, and everything that is wrong is not wrong, its just metaphorical. "Earth" doesn't mean the planet Earth, it means the universe... or it means the dry land only, and not the water or the land underneath the water... "And "water" doesn't mean "water" it means space, or the universe, and "heavens" doesn't mean the sky, it means space, or some extra dimensional plane of existence...

I'm sticking with the simple explanation that the Genesis account should be interpreted literally, and the person who wrote it meant it as a literal explanation for the origin of the universe. It made perfect sense to him at the time, based on his very limited understanding of the world around him when he wrote the story, and that's fine. But now we know that his story is obviously wrong.

What is wrong about it?

That was a part of my reaction to what you said, so my example has worked well to see you understand how what you wrote came across to me (perhaps).

In all fairness, one may freely believe there is no God, and live life to the fullest. To someone who accepts God as a reality, God sustains all life, whether that life accepts it or not. I live just fine not believing in evolution, how did we get here if evolution is not a reality?

 

[Lexicus]

What is wrong about it?

So many things. If we're treating it as a scientific or historical account, a literal retelling of events that actually happened, the better question would be "what ISN'T wrong with it."

I think, though, that it would be a mistake to interpret the story in that way.
As a history professor internet-acquaintance of mine put it on another forum I go on,

Well, for a start, Carrier and his opponent display a naive grasp of myth as an historical trope. For a start, the word 'myth' should not be taken to mean untrue, and historians (at least in my field) haven't since at least the 1980s. Myth shouldn't be thought of in these terms, but as instead as metaphorical narratives designed to explain in well understood terms. When Geoffrey of Monmouth describes King Arthur killing scores of people with one stroke of his sword, the point is not one which was understood to be literal but metaphorical; but rather that he was a exceptional and powerful warrior. That is the 'truth' to be understood from that narrative. Perhaps they should read Roland Barthes?

"Myth does not deny things, on the contrary, its function is to talk about them; simply, it purifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact. If I state the fact of French imperiality without explaining it, I am very near to finding that it is natural and goes without saying: I am reassured. In passing from history to nature, myth acts economically: it abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences, it does away with all dialectics, with any going back beyond what is immediately visible, it organizes a world which is without contradictions... Things appear to mean something by themselves..."

Roland Barthes, Mythologies (New York, [1957] 1973), pp. 142-3.

To bring this to the period in question, as Reza Aslan notes:

"The readers of Luke's gospel, like most people in the ancient world, did not make a sharp distinction between myth and reality; the two were intimately tied together in their spiritual experience. That is to say, they were less interested in what actually happened than in what it meant. It would have been perfectly normal -- indeed expected -- for a writer in the ancient world to tell tales of gods and heroes whose fundamental facts would have been recognized as false but whose underlying message would be seen as true."

Reza Aslan, Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (London, 2014), p. 31.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What is wrong about it?

As has been pointed out by Lexicus, if the Creation account was meant literally, as I have suggested, its wrong and its one of those situations where if you can't see that, no amount of me explaining it is going to change that.

On the other hand, if it is indeed intended to be a myth, then that also means it's just a story like Harry Potter, or Superman and should not, in any way be presented as accurate or "truth"... I mean we can talk all day and all night and then some about the symbolism of Star Wars, and what is a metaphor for what and all that, but if you start claiming that Star Wars really happened, or that we should base our laws on Star Wars... That's where the problem is. Fundamentalists don't present the Bible as myth. They present it as literal truth and try to explain any Scientific/historical/logical inconsistencies as being accurate, but just metaphorical.

I'm fine with the claim that the Bible is mythology... I don't agree, but it's no skin off my nose, as that's just another way of saying that it's made up stories. Whether the person who made up the stories thought they were true at the time he wrote them, doesn't change the fact that the stories are untrue/fantasy.

 

[Spartan_X]

In the beginning ... the Earth was without form ... and void. But the Sun shone upon the sleep... err.. you know the rest I wonder who was responsible for the writing of the classic Civilization intro, civilopedia, etc ... was it Sid himself maybe?

 

[warpus]

To someone who accepts God as a reality, God sustains all life, whether that life accepts it or not.

I can appreciate that, but "God is in your life whether you like it or not" sounds exactly like the stuff people were pushing on me when I was trying to push religion and ideas of God out of my life. Imagine if you're trying to be a vegetarian and people are telling you that you need to eat meat and that meat is in your life whether you like it or not. I doubt most people would respond well to that.

Since this is such an unorthodox and not so common view of God, putting 2 and 2 together and realizing that God = Universe and that's why the poster was saying that, is not necessarily the immediate conclusion. In fact, unless the person in question right away clarified what they meant, I probably wouldn't have figured it out.