God 2.0

[eigen]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: eigen
Lewis was not an agnostic correct.
But yet he is willing to say there are things about god which are unknowable, these non-sense questions that we ask.But is he willing to say that the existence of god is unknowable,no he does not. In fact he states "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis "

So that answer is self-serving.

So you think that his not being agnostic debunks the rest of his opinion? What about that do you not agree with?

It's the double standard which is clearly against the spirit of inquiry.

For Lewis god exists.This is clear in all his work and I can provide numerous quotes.But there are questions that we can not. ask because they are outside of our ability to know.Like the rock question.

But he dismiss a priori that perhaps we cannot know whether god exists or not.So he is willing to accept that somethings are unknowable when it suits him and not willing when it doest.In other words if we have the set of unknowable things.of The existence God is by axiom,assumption or whatever not in there.But certain aspects concerning God are, like the rock.

He contradicts himself though.He states:"God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. "
C. S. Lewis

Isnt this really the rock question reformulated.Can god do this thing which seems illogical.It should be unknowable.Yet lewis answers in the negative.

Thats why he is self-serving.Take a stance be consistent or not.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
I don't think one can argue with religion because it is faith based. I'm not talking about it in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense.

You can't bring to the table an argument of logic against religion because faith is its foothold.

But like I said, I think that's what makes religion so perfect. It is designed in such a way where there are answers to things that even science cannot provide.

Is that why you've chosen "athiesm"?

Well, I didn't exactly choose athiesm, but I feel as if that's the closest word to describe me.

I always thought that faith is what drives religion and I think it's the element that I am missing. To me, faith chooses you and not the other way around so maybe I am waiting for something.

So in the end, I'm not exactly choosing athiesm, but more that it is default for those who have no faith in God... yet.

That would be agnostic.

Athiest's more like "holy sh|t there can't possibly be a god. I KNOW for a fact that there is no god!" Agnostic's more like "I don't know whether there IS a god or not so I'm just going to live my life andmove on."

Faith *does* drive many religions. I don't know about faith choosing you rather than you developing faith. Faith isn't a sentient being. It doesn't make decisions.

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
I don't think one can argue with religion because it is faith based. I'm not talking about it in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense.

You can't bring to the table an argument of logic against religion because faith is its foothold.

But like I said, I think that's what makes religion so perfect. It is designed in such a way where there are answers to things that even science cannot provide.

Is that why you've chosen "athiesm"?

Well, I didn't exactly choose athiesm, but I feel as if that's the closest word to describe me.

I always thought that faith is what drives religion and I think it's the element that I am missing. To me, faith chooses you and not the other way around so maybe I am waiting for something.

So in the end, I'm not exactly choosing athiesm, but more that it is default for those who have no faith in God... yet.

That would be agnostic.

Athiest's more like "holy sh|t there can't possibly be a god. I KNOW for a fact that there is no god!" Agnostic's more like "I don't know whether there IS a god or not so I'm just going to live my life andmove on."

Faith *does* drive many religions. I don't know about faith choosing you rather than you developing faith. Faith isn't a sentient being. It doesn't make decisions.

I need to keep up with this lingo.

 

[biostud]

I think he's running visualization. He can both be God 1.0 and 2.0 at the same time and also run different languages and religions.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: eigen
Lewis was not an agnostic correct.
But yet he is willing to say there are things about god which are unknowable, these non-sense questions that we ask.But is he willing to say that the existence of god is unknowable,no he does not. In fact he states "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis "

So that answer is self-serving.

So you think that his not being agnostic debunks the rest of his opinion? What about that do you not agree with?

It's the double standard which is clearly against the spirit of inquiry.

For Lewis god exists.This is clear in all his work and I can provide numerous quotes.But there are questions that we can not. ask because they are outside of our ability to know.Like the rock question.

But he dismiss a priori that perhaps we cannot know whether god exists or not.So he is willing to accept that somethings are unknowable when it suits him and not willing when it doest.In other words if we have the set of unknowable things.of The existence God is by axiom,assumption or whatever not in there.But certain aspects concerning God are, like the rock.

He contradicts himself though.He states:"God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. "
C. S. Lewis

Isnt this really the rock question reformulated.Can god do this thing which seems illogical.It should be unknowable.Yet lewis answers in the negative.

Thats why he is self-serving.Take a stance be consistent or not.

C.S. Lewis is/was but a mortal after all.

However, I still think Mere Christianity is an excellent work for stimulating some deeper thoughts on faith and God.

To me, it is not a contradiction to say that happiness cannot exist apart from God because I view happiness as linked to love and I believe love is God. It's something I do not feel I can put into words adequately. It has been a slow process for me to come to this feeling and belief and is based on years of reading the Bible (that states that love is God and God is love) and my own conversations and thoughts.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
Of course it is. Religion is designed in a way in which you cannot argue with it. In some ways, that's what makes it perfect.

I'm athiest though so I think it's all BS. No offense.

No offense taken. Just another closed-minded "athiest" to join the ranks. Religion is argued all over the world and constantly. Saying that you can't argue with it is ridiculously ignorant.

:thumbsup:

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: eigen
Lewis was not an agnostic correct.
But yet he is willing to say there are things about god which are unknowable, these non-sense questions that we ask.But is he willing to say that the existence of god is unknowable,no he does not. In fact he states "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis "

So that answer is self-serving.

So you think that his not being agnostic debunks the rest of his opinion? What about that do you not agree with?

It's the double standard which is clearly against the spirit of inquiry.

For Lewis god exists.This is clear in all his work and I can provide numerous quotes.But there are questions that we can not. ask because they are outside of our ability to know.Like the rock question.

But he dismiss a priori that perhaps we cannot know whether god exists or not.So he is willing to accept that somethings are unknowable when it suits him and not willing when it doest.In other words if we have the set of unknowable things.of The existence God is by axiom,assumption or whatever not in there.But certain aspects concerning God are, like the rock.

He contradicts himself though.He states:"God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. "
C. S. Lewis

Isnt this really the rock question reformulated.Can god do this thing which seems illogical.It should be unknowable.Yet lewis answers in the negative.

Thats why he is self-serving.Take a stance be consistent or not.

C.S. Lewis is/was but a mortal after all.

However, I still think Mere Christianity is an excellent work for stimulating some deeper thoughts on faith and God.

To me, it is not a contradiction to say that happiness cannot exist apart from God because I view happiness as linked to love and I believe love is God. It's something I do not feel I can put into words adequately. It has been a slow process for me to come to this feeling and belief and is based on years of reading the Bible (that states that love is God and God is love) and my own conversations and thoughts.

Well, I was answering Nik.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
I need to keep up with this lingo.

:laugh: It's all good.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: eigen
Lewis was not an agnostic correct.
But yet he is willing to say there are things about god which are unknowable, these non-sense questions that we ask.But is he willing to say that the existence of god is unknowable,no he does not. In fact he states "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis "

So that answer is self-serving.

So you think that his not being agnostic debunks the rest of his opinion? What about that do you not agree with?

It's the double standard which is clearly against the spirit of inquiry.

For Lewis god exists.This is clear in all his work and I can provide numerous quotes.But there are questions that we can not. ask because they are outside of our ability to know.Like the rock question.

But he dismiss a priori that perhaps we cannot know whether god exists or not.So he is willing to accept that somethings are unknowable when it suits him and not willing when it doest.In other words if we have the set of unknowable things.of The existence God is by axiom,assumption or whatever not in there.But certain aspects concerning God are, like the rock.

He contradicts himself though.He states:"God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. "
C. S. Lewis

Isnt this really the rock question reformulated.Can god do this thing which seems illogical.It should be unknowable.Yet lewis answers in the negative.

Thats why he is self-serving.Take a stance be consistent or not.

C.S. Lewis is/was but a mortal after all.

However, I still think Mere Christianity is an excellent work for stimulating some deeper thoughts on faith and God.

To me, it is not a contradiction to say that happiness cannot exist apart from God because I view happiness as linked to love and I believe love is God. It's something I do not feel I can put into words adequately. It has been a slow process for me to come to this feeling and belief and is based on years of reading the Bible (that states that love is God and God is love) and my own conversations and thoughts.

Well, I was answering Nik.

And he was replying to you.

 

[Kadarin]

If "God" is male, then God can't have babies (and if God could, who would the father be? Himself? Then wouldn't that be asexual reproduction, and if so, why is God considered male?)

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
If "God" is male, then God can't have babies (and if God could, who would the father be? Himself? Then wouldn't that be asexual reproduction, and if so, why is God considered male?)

God is not a reproductive being. God also does not have need for "male versus female" so the question of whether god is man or woman is also FUBAR to begin with.

In Bible times, authority figures were almost 100% male. Heads of household, heads of family, heads of state, blah blah blah were all male, save a very very slim few. An authority figure such as the creator of everything would naturally be attributed to male.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
If "God" is male, then God can't have babies (and if God could, who would the father be? Himself? Then wouldn't that be asexual reproduction, and if so, why is God considered male?)

God is not a reproductive being. God also does not have need for "male versus female" so the question of whether god is man or woman is also FUBAR to begin with.

In Bible times, authority figures were almost 100% male. Heads of household, heads of family, heads of state, blah blah blah were all male, save a very very slim few. An authority figure such as the creator of everything would naturally be attributed to male.

I seem to recall something about God having a son...

So if God is truly asexual, why have not later translations been adjusted to reflect this, and refer to "Him" as "It" (or some other neutral pronoun)?

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
If "God" is male, then God can't have babies (and if God could, who would the father be? Himself? Then wouldn't that be asexual reproduction, and if so, why is God considered male?)

God is not a reproductive being. God also does not have need for "male versus female" so the question of whether god is man or woman is also FUBAR to begin with.

In Bible times, authority figures were almost 100% male. Heads of household, heads of family, heads of state, blah blah blah were all male, save a very very slim few. An authority figure such as the creator of everything would naturally be attributed to male.

I seem to recall something about God having a son...

So if God is truly asexual, why have not later translations been adjusted to reflect this, and refer to "Him" as "It" (or some other neutral pronoun)?

If that happened, more people would object to the Bible being altered.

Jesus is God. Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit... three facets of one 'being'. Since Jesus is male, it's fair to refer to God as a male.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
If "God" is male, then God can't have babies (and if God could, who would the father be? Himself? Then wouldn't that be asexual reproduction, and if so, why is God considered male?)

God is not a reproductive being. God also does not have need for "male versus female" so the question of whether god is man or woman is also FUBAR to begin with.

In Bible times, authority figures were almost 100% male. Heads of household, heads of family, heads of state, blah blah blah were all male, save a very very slim few. An authority figure such as the creator of everything would naturally be attributed to male.

I seem to recall something about God having a son...

So if God is truly asexual, why have not later translations been adjusted to reflect this, and refer to "Him" as "It" (or some other neutral pronoun)?

The concept of "son" is one used to describe the decendants, generation to generation, right? The Bible doesn't say that God screwed Mary and got her pregnant. In fact, the first three verses of the Bible describe the simultaneous existance of what are most commonly described as "god the father" and "god the son."

 

[dugweb]

Shoot, this thread just brought me out of my weeklong vacation. Post #2223

Originally posted by: deftron

Originally posted by: everman
That's kind of like saying infinity +1
You can't make omnipotent "more omnipotent" can you?

If you're "God", you should be able to.



Those are man's definitions

I believe God follows his own laws. His laws happen to be mathematics, science, and nature. You can see the patterns everywhere. That is the beauty of His creation!

I don't think God chooses to be this mystical creature that comes up with ideas in order to confuse us (i.e. like him saying "you guys thought I was omnipotent then?! well... omnipotence +1 HAH!") but he does operate in ways we do not understand, only because we aren't ready to understand it. It's like math, you learn + - * \ then algebra, calculus and so on. Line upon line, precept upon precept. We can comprehend God, but not yet, and most likely never will in this life.

Originally posted by: IonYou
Your ill founded baseless doubts about my "brain power" as you put it don't impress me. Rather they show you for the defensive frightened little creature you are all too worried about how others will perceive him and lashing out at the first sign of conflict. Your retort wasn't meant as an insult. Right. Neither was mine. Right? Just a troll too? As in you are one as well? No need to inform us of that, we were already well aware of that.

It was a simple question. instead of answering it, you lashed out like a frightened little school girl. I suppose argumentatively backing yourself into a corner left you with no other choice. But that was your doing not mine. I just called you on it. Have a nice night.

You need to leave.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Dugweb, excellent concepts.

I'd love to continue this conversation; perhaps I shall on the new morn. Good night AT.

 

[dugweb]

Originally posted by: Nik
Dugweb, excellent concepts.

I'd love to continue this conversation; perhaps I shall on the new morn. Good night AT.

lol, I'm a little behind! after I submitted my post the thread had almost doubled in size

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
If "God" is male, then God can't have babies (and if God could, who would the father be? Himself? Then wouldn't that be asexual reproduction, and if so, why is God considered male?)

God is not a reproductive being. God also does not have need for "male versus female" so the question of whether god is man or woman is also FUBAR to begin with.

In Bible times, authority figures were almost 100% male. Heads of household, heads of family, heads of state, blah blah blah were all male, save a very very slim few. An authority figure such as the creator of everything would naturally be attributed to male.

I seem to recall something about God having a son...

So if God is truly asexual, why have not later translations been adjusted to reflect this, and refer to "Him" as "It" (or some other neutral pronoun)?

The concept of "son" is one used to describe the decendants, generation to generation, right? The Bible doesn't say that God screwed Mary and got her pregnant. In fact, the first three verses of the Bible describe the simultaneous existance of what are most commonly described as "god the father" and "god the son."

Male descendants, yes. No one has ever, to my knowledge, referred to a female descendant as a "son". So "father" and "son" have two meanings here: One states that son is a genetic descendant of the father (or the son is adopted, i.e. an unrelated being that has been arbitrarily declared to be an "honorary descendant".) The other is that the sex of the father is male. Otherwise, the term "mother" would be used, or "parent" (if there were a parental relationship here, which there does not appear to be). Jesus (assuming he was a real person) was male.