News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

A New Definition for God?

Started by maestroanth, March 20, 2009, 12:45:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

maestroanth

March 20, 2009, 12:45:58 PM Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 05:43:53 PM by maestroanth
F

Hitsumei

#1
March 20, 2009, 01:04:25 PM
Invisible, yet purple...
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

PipeBox

#2
March 20, 2009, 01:23:06 PM
//Aside:  why is this in science?  I mean, we can most certainly come up with a scientifically compatible version of god, but it will either be unable to manifest for us, unable to know that we desire it to, or unwilling.  So no matter what, the God of popular culture is getting the hose.  Not that you have a problem with that, but we may as well make the definition:

The thing we can never be 100% sure doesn't exist, but the existence of which will never be vindicated in the entire life of the universe, or not on any scale so large as to leave evidence.
If sin may be committed through inaction, God never stopped.

My soul, do not seek eternal life, but exhaust the realm of the possible.
-- Pindar

Ihateyoumike

#3
March 20, 2009, 04:21:38 PM
I'll stick with my definition: imaginary friend.
Prayers that need no answer now, cause I'm tired of who I am
You were my greatest mistake, I fell in love with your sin
Your littlest sin.

McQ

#4
March 20, 2009, 05:19:52 PM
Quote from: "maestroanth"I'll start:

A something outside our senses:

(I also mean "enhancement" tools")

Well that definition of god makes it very easy to be an atheist then. I'm all for it!

If it can't be detected, sensed, etc., in any way, then it cannot interact with or be part of the universe. Therefore it doesn't exist. I love it.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

SteveS

#5
March 20, 2009, 06:51:13 PM
Quote from: "McQ"If it can't be detected, sensed, etc., in any way, then it cannot interact with or be part of the universe. Therefore it doesn't exist. I love it.
A man after my own heart!  (as the saying goes)

Even if someone says that you can't leap to this metaphysical conclusion, I say that for me if anything like this can be said to maybe exist in some-such-or-other way-that-we-could-never-know then I find it completely and utterly irrelevant whether it does or not.

(This "apatheism" is maybe starting to grow on me.....) ;)

Hitsumei

#6
March 20, 2009, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: "SteveS"
Quote from: "McQ"If it can't be detected, sensed, etc., in any way, then it cannot interact with or be part of the universe. Therefore it doesn't exist. I love it.
A man after my own heart!  (as the saying goes)

Even if someone says that you can't leap to this metaphysical conclusion, I say that for me if anything like this can be said to maybe exist in some-such-or-other way-that-we-could-never-know then I find it completely and utterly irrelevant whether it does or not.

(This "apatheism" is maybe starting to grow on me.....) ;)

Well, if you take "universe" to mean "all things known and supposed to exist throughout space time", and "existence" to mean occupying a point in space and time -- then the conclusion is valid.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

Whitney

#7
March 23, 2009, 11:01:09 PM
1) This is not science and is about to be moved to philosophy.
2)  Why do we need to re-define the word god?

maestroanth

#8
March 25, 2009, 10:53:40 AM Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 05:44:04 PM by maestroanth
F

Whitney

#9
March 25, 2009, 11:24:57 PM
Maes, no one else has a problem with pointing out when they think I am wrong on a subject nor do I make it into a problem for them.  Basically, yes you can question me but you don't have to be a jerk about it.  Sometimes I swear you are trying to figure out what it will take for me to say enough and just ban you.

Anyway...

I fail to see how something which cannot be tested for is a scientific topic...please explain.

I have always thought that 'god' simply means a being who created everything that exists and is worthy of worship.  Do you disagree?

maestroanth

#10
March 27, 2009, 11:58:54 AM
Quote from: "Whitney"Maes, no one else has a problem with pointing out when they think I am wrong on a subject nor do I make it into a problem for them.  Basically, yes you can question me but you don't have to be a jerk about it.  Sometimes I swear you are trying to figure out what it will take for me to say enough and just ban you.

Anyway...

I fail to see how something which cannot be tested for is a scientific topic...please explain.

I have always thought that 'god' simply means a being who created everything that exists and is worthy of worship.  Do you disagree?

Yea.

Ninteen45

#11
March 27, 2009, 04:57:17 PM
God: A symptom of Schizophrenia
Now I can be re-gognizod!
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions