Printable View
God is such a mystery until you have faith, all and or anything is possible and faith is the key. When it comes to defining the unity of God with everything, those without faith ask for examples. God is a journey that your soul strives for, or not. God cares not about our definitions, it is and always will be. I like to think that God is the union of souls departed with nature, and the cosmic blend of love, mercy, and respect.
I will give my concept of "god" (I appreciate your posts in this thread Blaze)
Assuming that I indulge the side of me that believes there is a god without quesiton.
God is the fabric of this world (as you point out in many different ways, Blaze). I believe everything in the same way you said it. Hopefully, I can add more. God is a planner. He makes budgets, but sometimes things don't go as planned since we have free will.
He remakes budgets, recycles people that were on one path that wasn't working, and uses them for another. He is the ultimate computer system if you will. But unlike any other computer system out there-- he is organic. (I am tempted to call him a cyborg :) for laughs )
When I say organic-- I mean emotional. And his ring is always fading in our ears. And we can match our ring with "his" if we are aware enough.
That is the best I got. Unfortunately :(
DanielBeniot..
I unfortunately, dont care about what did philosophers say, even if thay were students for a great philosopher, and teachers for a great king, as Aristotle. All that theories, ideas philosophies are changing with every new invention, with every new philosopher.. I have my own.Quote:
Okay, in all seriousness now, this concept of 'orgin' is an old and original one (excuse the phonetic irony ). It dates far far back and was in fact one of the prime arguments Aristotle used in theorizing that the universe was ageless.
No, I disagree completely.. Firstly, It is not just a words game. It is a frequently question. Secondly, absolutely I never perceive the orgin of chickens, but I believe that there is a one.. There is an orgin for chickens.Quote:
The problem is not the infinite regress found in the chicken or the egg question, but that these word games have no basis in reality. We never percieve an orgin, we merely make connections. Things happen according to the laws of physics, but how does that imply that there's a causal orgin? Putting aside the discoveries in quantum theory.
Because, I will be shocked if I suddenly saw a hen in the left hand of a magician in around, just after seconds that it was not there.. cause I cant make a connection for it's orgin.. like where did it come from? please Mom tell me how?
I got lost here :confused:! Let's take Da vinci as an example.. Da vinci made The MonaLiza, The Last Dinner and Palazzo Vecchio. Okay, he is the orgin of all these Works.. All of them back to him, thus make him doesn't adherent to them.. meke you not mention Da Vinci himself when you are mentioning his works. Derrida forgot to expalin that for you.. How to make things without being adherent to them.. How to differentiate between the Center and the Orgin.Quote:
Now let's go into Derridean discourse: Let's say that God is the origin of this structure we call the universe. God is the center and origin of the totality. He is the governing element of the structure and is above all other things, and thus has no other equilvelent. He is the center of the structure, and yet he is independent of the structure (for to be part of the structure would make him adherent to the structure, and thus not all-ruling). God is the center and yet not part of the totality, i.e. the structure. And thus the center is outside of the structure; the center is not a center, and the structure is not a structure (without any sort of center, a structure is chaotic).
(Note: We can replace the deconstructivist jargon "center" with "orgin" and it would still apply to the same thing.)
And who said that I pointed to the orgin here? No, I just explained how to beleive on somethng without seeing it.. simply.Quote:
That's a matter of interpretation. As a believer, you have God as the ultimate signifier. You, like everyone else, create a map of things in your head and have them all point to an orgin, merely as a matter of coherence. But in fact, these words are not all pointing to an orgin and are merely pointing to other things, signified to the signified, and so on and on, for then for there to be a final signifier would have to have it apply to a semantic choice in order for it to have any meaning.
In the end all of our infinite regresses of logic merely refer back to our words.
So why do people keep saying that the Last dinner painting back to Da vinci? What should we say, it painted itself by itself for example? I think that you mixed things togather... If I asked you who did make The Last Dinner painting, I will expect you to say Da Vinci.. and if I asked you who did make the colors that Da vinci mixed.. you may search for an old Italian colors factory..Quote:
The genes question is merely a matter of biology, which I think you will find quite interesting upon studying the workings of evolution.
Many of us look at things in terms of a creation because we relate it to our everyday life. We assume that since their was a creator to a painting, that there must've been a creator to everything, which is a bit ridiculous because of the fact that the painter didn't really create anything in the first place. He merely just mixed a bunch of materials together until it came out appearing as something coherent. Creation as it is usually used as a word, could really be considered creating coherence, as oppose to creating things.
Da vinci made The Last Dinner painiting.. not the colors and the board.
God made human.. who make your Mountain Dew.. That's it ..in my modest view:)
No No.. I didnt say that.. I didnt say that if you have no answers for something you asked about, you should believe on something else related.. somthing else you even can't make it sense to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
What did I explain.. that you will have no answers if you ask questions like "what is the orgin of the orgin?" " What is before the begining?" " Why do the orgin has no orgin?".
So what do you expect to hear.. an answer? Answer for what was before the begining?! I dont think so, and until now.. there is nobody answered this question.
Here.. I don't say: Hey let's believe on God because there is no answer for our questions. No! I said that, the mean of the "Begining" word, the "first time" word and the "orgin" word, make us beleive on them.. believe that there is nothing before them.. thus believe on God.
What did I say that if you ask a child, What did happen before the first episode of Grendaizer.. you will hear nothing.. not because he doesn't know what happened.. no, because your question is wrong. The begining means there is nothing before it.
Then.. aske him what did happen in the first episode.. he will answer simply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
Note the olive colored text. Why do I believe in pain but not God?
You can see pain. I said this last time: if someone is on fire, you can see the cause of their pain. If you are at your best friend's funeral and he is crying, you can see the cause of his pain (the dead body). You CAN see pain; you can't see the impulse that causes you to recognize pain. So, the whole "believe because you can't see it" theory in your first post (from the parts I left out) loses its merit.
Notice the dark orange text, most specifically the last 3 sentences. So what if nobody has ever answered that question? I'm sure nobody knew how to make a fire until somebody figured it out. I'm sure nobody knew how the brain works until someone took the time to discover it's function. Surely you can't expect me to stop searching for an origin to God JUST BECAUSE nobody has ever answered it before, can you? I mean, that's all that your dark orange post is insinuating.
Blue only needs 1 sentence to respond to it.
Why can't God have an origin?
I asked that last time: I'm still waiting.
Oh, and if you're going to answer that question by saying that "God just is," or "God is all-powerful, so he can't have an origin," might as well consider that logic to be refuted also. Paintings can have an origin, but God can't; man MUST have an origin, but God can't.
Theist hypocrisy.
I wasn't being rhetorical, just stating a historical fact. All I'm saying is that this question is nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
Though this Kierkegaardian leap may be useful in existential discourse, it is utterly irrational in ontological rhetoric and is no more than a cop-out.Quote:
No, I disagree completely.. Firstly, It is not just a words game. It is a frequently question. Secondly, absolutely I never perceive the orgin of chickens, but I believe that there is a one.. There is an orgin for chickens.
. . . . .then it must be God! no Zeus! no Mountain Dew!Quote:
Because, I will be shocked if I suddenly saw a hen in the left hand of a magician in around, just after seconds that it was not there.. cause I cant make a connection for it's orgin.. like where did it come from? please Mom tell me how?
Okay, first of all, Derrida just didn't explain it for me as if some kind of cult leader, I'm just reiterating what I find to be the best argument against the entire system of traditional Western metaphysics.Quote:
I got lost here :confused:! Let's take Da vinci as an example.. Da vinci made The MonaLiza, The Last Dinner and Palazzo Vecchio. Okay, he is the orgin of all these Works.. All of them back to him, thus make him doesn't adherent to them.. meke you not mention Da Vinci himself when you are mentioning his works. Derrida forgot to expalin that for you.. How to make things without being adherent to them.. How to differentiate between the Center and the Orgin.
But, but, I thought the paint was the origin. No, it was the paintbrush. No, it was the oil. :confused: If DaVinci was the all-encompassing origin of The Mona Lisa, he wouldn't have needed any extentions such as paint, canvas, etc. Just as much as God wouldn't need any extentions such as magic, a meta-God, etc. The origin must be entirely self-sufficent, self-reliant, self-creative, in other words, the thing-in-itself.
The problem's that this origin doens't exist.Quote:
And who said that I pointed to the orgin here? No, I just explained how to beleive on somethng without seeing it.. simply.
As I said before, the DaVinci-Mona Lisa connection is not an intrinsic thing, if a creation was to actually create something, then DaVinci would've never used any means. A creation in the way we define it is not a creation in the way that God creating the world would be, but rather just a use of resources to create patterns. The Mona Lisa is not some kind of holy thing that floated out of DaVinci's head; it is merely, in all its beauty and engimacy, is merely a manipulation of material to create a pattern so that it brings coherence and pleasure to our eyes. A painter in a sense is not a creator, but one who can judge what is coherent or not.Quote:
So why do people keep saying that the Last dinner painting back to Da vinci? What should we say, it painted itself by itself for example? I think that you mixed things togather... If I asked you who did make The Last Dinner painting, I will expect you to say Da Vinci.. and if I asked you who did make the colors that Da vinci mixed.. you may search for an old Italian colors factory..
And you may keep it :)Quote:
Da vinci made The Last Dinner painiting.. not the colors and the board.
God made human.. who make your Mountain Dew.. That's it ..in my modest view:)
IceM.
No! You should be a superman to see the pain.Now, as a normal human, you can't see the pain and you will not ever see it. How could you know that the "dead body" is the reason of the pain, while you couldn't recognize that the "tears" is the result of it? result of the pain? not the pain it self! it is a far different.
Even the cut.. the cut in your hand is not the pain it self.. no! It is also the cause of your internal pain.. What is the knife? it is the cause of the cut.. The pain is feeling, no body can see the feeling..
No I can't.. Just Keep searching :) and when you, or any other scientist have an answer for that just tell me.. After all of that, tell me also when they had told you the answer, if you stopped asking for the orgin of the orgin of God.. Because I will not spend my life in asking and asking and asking for no end!Quote:
Surely you can't expect me to stop searching for an origin to God JUST BECAUSE nobody has ever answered it before, can you ?
Tell me before that, what does the "orgin" mean in your language!Quote:
Why can't God have an origin?
Which God? They are all different.
DanielBenoit
Ok.. Thanks for providing information :)Quote:
I wasn't being rhetorical, just stating a historical fact. All I'm saying is that this question is nothing new.
and thanks for the assessments..and thanks for Kierkegaard himself!Quote:
Though this Kierkegaardian leap may be useful in existential discourse, it is utterly irrational in ontological rhetoric and is no more than a cop-out.
No a Trick!Quote:
then it must be God! no Zeus! no Mountain Dew!
Okay.. you are right here completely. Da vinci have needed other things to make HIS Last dinner, But I gave that example to tell you how to make things without being adherent to them.. not to explain what the "independent" word means to a foreign student.. because you have said this:Quote:
But, but, I thought the paint was the origin. No, it was the paintbrush. No, it was the oil. If DaVinci was the all-encompassing origin of The Mona Lisa, he wouldn't have needed any extentions such as paint, canvas, etc. Just as much as God wouldn't need any extentions such as magic, a meta-God, etc. The origin must be entirely self-sufficent, self-reliant, self-creative, in other words, the thing-in-itself.
.Quote:
(for to be part of the structure would make him adherent to the structure, and thus not all-ruling).
No.. if it is one of your works, then you had absolutely created it!.. or let's say you had made it.. It makes more sense now.Quote:
The Mona Lisa is not some kind of holy thing that floated out of DaVinci's head; it is merely, in all its beauty and engimacy, is merely a manipulation of material to create a pattern so that it brings coherence and pleasure to our eyes. A painter in a sense is not a creator, but one who can judge what is coherent or not.
God is the source of everything. God is Krishna, God is Buddha, God is Pure Land. God is all that is holy and true.
People say, "Why doesn't God appear to me this instant, and accede my demands, punish me for my blasphemy, and prove His existence?" But this is a wrong attitude. We must be qualified to see God. Even in this world, if we want to speak to the President, we are not able to unless we are qualified. If I call the White House and demand to speak to him, requesting him to prove his existence to me, I would be disregarded. So why should God, who is the Lord of the Universe, heed all my demands?
Still, we shouldn't speak of God or the soul if we haven't experienced them. Only a few times in my life have I experienced revelation of divine consciousness, and yet those I know were the only real moments of my existence. God is Buddha, enthroned on a Lotus, surrounded by limitless pure love. The source of everything is this, and it is infinite. Since the source of everything is this, it is within everything, even every cell - so within every cell is infinite space, infinite Pure Lands, and the very source of those Pure Lands is a Lotus, and the Lotus may be said be emanating from God. The nature of this - God, Krishna, Buddha - is infinite bliss, peace and knowledge. It is beyond all description, it is not found in logical arguments. Another way it may be understood is simply "Love," or "Pure Love," or "Spirit."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
The knife causes the cut. The cut is painful. The knife inflicts pain. You can see what causes the pain. You can see the result of the pain. You can see the reaction to the pain. You can see the pain. Do I really have to state that any more clearly?
With the dead body metaphor, the tears signify the pain. You see the dead body. You see the reason for the tears. You see the reaction to the reason. You see the pain. What are you failing to undrestand here?
Origin: beginning: the place where something begins, where it springs into being; "the Italian beginning of the Renaissance"; "Jupiter was the origin of. Courtesy of: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I ask you again. Why can't God have an origin? You've been dodging that question since I asked it.
P.S. Orgin isn't a word. It's origin.
Yes, I agree with uQuote:
Originally Posted by selkies
_________________
koozies | great koozies | design koozies online
My concept of god is logic
IceM.. Nooo! You are completely wrong!
Yes, I can see the cause of the pain..the result, or let's say the reaction of it..but not the pain itself..no! Abseolutly no!
The pain is FEELING. Nobody can see the feeling.. because it is in your heart..you FEEL it, not SEE it! There is a big different.
If you don't trust me, you can ask somebody else :)
....and when you hear the word of "begining" I think the normal question_if there is a one_ is: "What is after the begining" Not "What was before the begining".Quote:
Origin: beginning
Why? because the begining word means, that there is nothing before it..and I have been told you.. if I, for example, told you what is the origin of God, you will keep asking about the origin of that origin.. because you don't understand the Origin and the Begining words meaning..Not because there is nobody until now have an answer for it.. no, but because some people_including you_ still don't believe that God is before everything in the world..
No.. I have not been dodging. It is not one of my habits.. I answered you .. Go and have a look :)Quote:
I ask you again. Why can't God have an origin? You've been dodging that question since I asked it
P.S: Thank you :)
Why must Man have an origin but God cannot? You accept that God IS the origin without providing any reasoning as to how he cannot be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
Once again, why can't God have an origin. Why is He the beginning? Why can't He have a beginning? Because it defies YOUR theist logic? Or because you see the continual onslaught of questions as too tiresome of think of and choose to use God as your only response?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
So you're content to just accept God as an answer without even bothering to think of the question? Humankind HAS to have an origin, but God cannot. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Juventus
Instead of bothering to answer the question with any attempt of logic, you keep saying I do not comprehend the mere meanings of origin and beginning. Instead of even attempting to postulate ANY form of logical response, you're going to continue reiterating that I cannot comprehend definitions to basic words. I pity you.
This topic is no longer worth discussing. As long as you're continuing to sidestep why God has no origin, why he is the beginning of creation and the "eternal being" while Man MUST have an origin, what's the point of bickering about concrete definitions? Until you actually confront my questions with a logical, reasonable, or even relevant answer, this discussion is over.
^
Ya.. the discussion is over.. Not because I have not been answered you, No! I did؛
Quote:
Here.. I don't say: Hey let's believe on God because there is no answer for our questions. No! I said that, the mean of the "Begining" word, the "first time" word and the "orgin" word, make us beleive on them.. believe that there is nothing before them.. thus believe on God.
Quote:
The begining means there is nothing before it.
Quote:
and when you hear the word of "begining" I think the normal question_if there is a one_ is: "What is after the begining" Not "What was before the begining".
Why? because the begining word means, that there is nothing before it..and I have been told you.. if I, for example, told you what is the origin of God, you will keep asking about the origin of that origin.. because you don't understand the Origin and the Begining words meaning..Not because there is nobody until now have an answer for it.. no, but because some people_including you_ still don't believe that God is before everything in the world..
All of these are answers! Why can't God have an origin? because God himself is the origin!
The discussion is over absolutely, because you don't want to satisfy or maybe because you have not understood..! Don't say because I have not answered you!