Happy Atheist Forum

I am starting this thread at the request of Dagda who states that he will define his god including all of the attributes of this god.  Dagda will also disclose what this god does all day and whether this god requires belief in this god's existence.

So far Dagda has avoided defining his god by bring the subject up and then not addressing it.  The following is from his posts on "The God Debate" thread the bold is mine.

QuoteI find that the definition of God is central to the debate over His existence (what are we arguing about?) but it seems to be ignored almost completely. For instance, if we define God as all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing, then we should all be atheists as no such being can possibly exist (omnipotence as most people understand it is a contradiction, and there is the problem of evil to consider). However, if we define God in different manner (such as the feminist critique or mystical interpretation) then we may get into a proper discussion

The post ends here without a definition.

QuoteI disagree. As an atheist you define yourself as not believing in God, but if you do not know what God is then how can you not believe in God? A personal example would be that I do not know all that much about Jainism therefore it would be silly of me to say I do not believe in Jainism because for all I know they could be preaching some decent and logical theories. In the same vain I cannot say I agree with Jainism because I simply don’t know if I do. In the same way you could legitimately take an agnostic stance on the grounds that you simply do not know what a ‘God’ would be, it is hard to see how an atheistically stance becomes justifiable if you attain that you don’t know what you don’t believe in (like me saying Jainism is stupid).

Still no definition of what Dagda means by god.

QuoteIn the case of God any atheist who wishes to remain free of faith must have a definition of God. How can you deny the existence of a thing from ignorance unless you appeal to faith?

Dagda demands a definition of god by atheists but again fails to provide his definition.  In my next post I will ask Dagda to define god. by answering some questions..

Dagda, here are my questions.  Please answer each one but feel free to tell us more about your god and her attributes.


What or who is your god? Is your god a spirit or some sort of force like gravity?

Is your god the source of the universe, a creator?

Does your god require worship? If so why?

Has your god inspired or directly written any sacred instructions for you? If so what are those instructions?

How are those instructions different from moral or ethical codes of other religions or philosophies?

Does your god have to be obeyed? If so why? What happens if she is not obeyed?

What does god do for a job? Does she interact in any way with the universe?

If your definition of your god disagrees with the Nicene Creed, why do you call yourself a Christian? Here is a link to the Nicene Creed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_ve ... .28ELLC.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#1988_ecumenical_version_.28ELLC.29)

I hope you will answer these questions because by doing so, I think all discussions will be more on point.

I am going to number your questions so I don’t have to keep quoting the post above.

1)   As I have said many times before, God is a kind of collective consciousness. The bond or link which holds the Universe together. The originator of natural and moral laws. All round good egg.
2)   I prefer intelligent causation of the Universe to creator as it has less baggage, but I do think God is the creator of form and mind.
3)   Require? No.
4)   To paraphrase Bacon, there are two sacred scriptures; the Bible and nature. From these two scriptures we can formulate all moral and philosophical ideas; the good life essentially. Of course the Bible is my cultural example; if I were Muslim the Koran could replace the first scripture if I so desired it.
5)   See above
6)   Of course God has to be obeyed on certain levels. What happens if you try and oppose these commands? You most likely die. Not in a fire and brimstone way mind, more of a opposing the law of Gravity kind of way-it can’t be done.
7)   Surely that is covered in 1)?

The Nicene Creed is not the unalterable rock on which Christianity rests. There are a few Christian sect who do not embrace the decisions of the Nicene Creed and there were Christians before the Council met.

I am aware the above answer is rather short and lazily presented, but I have not got much spare time in March-May. Hope this is sufficient.

Quote from: "Dagda"I am going to number your questions so I don’t have to keep quoting the post above.

1)   As I have said many times before, God is a kind of collective consciousness. The bond or link which holds the Universe together. The originator of natural and moral laws. All round good egg.
2)   I prefer intelligent causation of the Universe to creator as it has less baggage, but I do think God is the creator of form and mind.
3)   Require? No.
4)   To paraphrase Bacon, there are two sacred scriptures; the Bible and nature. From these two scriptures we can formulate all moral and philosophical ideas; the good life essentially. Of course the Bible is my cultural example; if I were Muslim the Koran could replace the first scripture if I so desired it.
5)   See above
6)   Of course God has to be obeyed on certain levels. What happens if you try and oppose these commands? You most likely die. Not in a fire and brimstone way mind, more of a opposing the law of Gravity kind of way-it can’t be done.
7)   Surely that is covered in 1)?

The Nicene Creed is not the unalterable rock on which Christianity rests. There are a few Christian sect who do not embrace the decisions of the Nicene Creed and there were Christians before the Council met.

I am aware the above answer is rather short and lazily presented, but I have not got much spare time in March-May. Hope this is sufficient.

If God is a 'collective consciousness' how could god also be a creator?  #1 and 2 are completely circular logic.  God is a collective consciousness, but God also created form and mind?  So...what 'collective consciousness' created God?  What you seem to be saying here is that God created the mind and minds created God.  That doesn't work.

Also, could you please go into more detail about your response to #3?  Your answer seems purposefully obtuse, but I may just be incorrigibly curious.  

If the supposedly intelligently-designed universe necessarily requires an intelligent creator, then the next question is very obvious.

Who created god?

And who created the dude who created god?

And so on...

[youtube:15bie56u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube:15bie56u]

Quote from: "Dagda"I am going to number your questions so I don’t have to keep quoting the post above.

1)   As I have said many times before, God is a kind of collective consciousness. The bond or link which holds the Universe together. The originator of natural and moral laws. All round good egg. So you are not in fact a Christian who believes in the god of the Nicene Creed.
2)   I prefer intelligent causation of the Universe to creator as it has less baggage, but I do think God is the creator of form and mind. Others have commented on the lack of logic of this statement.  You may wish to rephrase.
3)   Require? No. Please expand on this answer since if your god does not require worship then why do you follow the sacred texts that state that your god requires worship?
4)   To paraphrase Bacon, there are two sacred scriptures; the Bible and nature. From these two scriptures we can formulate all moral and philosophical ideas; the good life essentially. Of course the Bible is my cultural example; if I were Muslim the Koran could replace the first scripture if I so desired it. Muslims follow the Old Testament and that angry jealous god certainly requires worship
5)   See above  You limited your answer to Abrahamic religions that all follow the OT.  Why is that?
6)   Of course God has to be obeyed on certain levels. What happens if you try and oppose these commands? You most likely die. Not in a fire and brimstone way mind, more of a opposing the law of Gravity kind of way-it can’t be done. Why does your god require obedience and what are her commands that if not followed will result in my death?
7)   Surely that is covered in 1)? I think you need to expand on this answer in light of the logical flaws of answer 1./color]
Those who do not accept the Nicene Creed are not considered Christians by the majority.  Mormons are not considered Christians.  That's why Romney was beaten by Huckabee.

I am aware the above answer is rather short and lazily presented, but I have not got much spare time in March-May. Hope this is sufficient. Not Really but I will wait until you have more time to expand on your thoughts.

Beleivers are not able to define that which they had not seen so they give themselves the HOPE that there exists a God who will take care of them. Faith, them becomes their pillar or their pillows. This is a way of escaping reality, the realities of this world. Nature is an extension of our existence and we are also an extension of Nature as its evolving and carrying changes. It has no Mind of its own and has no directions of its own, it just happens. We on the other hand can influence Nature and in some cases manipulted it to do our will while on the other hand we can't control an earthquake nor can a biblical God if it were to exist. Given the realities of PLANET EARTH it is illogical to think that a super-natural-being is writing our destiny/history. Faith is just a wish and hope is just a way of crying for someone to rescued you from yourself and others.

God or gods are supernatural individuals. Everything after that is mythology, but that core description is common to all gods.

God is Mystery
Unintelligible to the human mind.
It is extremely difficult to communicate and comprehend the subtle and abstract ideas which describe the Mystery.

Quote from: "noquarter"It is extremely difficult to communicate and comprehend the subtle and abstract ideas which describe the Mystery.

Well don't be afraid to try.

Both Pagan and Christian of origination image God as a "Big Mind" which thinks, or imagines, or dreams the cosmos into existence.
The "Stillness" of Pure immeasurable Consciousness (Spirit) stirs to issue forth a "thought".
Consciousness is the basis for existence.
You can understand this from your own experience, because if you were not conscious, nothing would exist for you,nor would you exist for yourself.
However, the ultimate "Source" of all cannot be Consciousness, since before it thinks the first thought Consciousness must be conscious of nothing and therefore unconscious.
In other words, take away the object of Consciousness and Consciousness vanishes with it. Consciousness is always inseparable from that which it is conscious of.
This duality of Consciousness and Object is not the ultimate source, The Absolute Mystery is the ultimate source.
Since it comes before Consciousness it is not something you can be conscious of. Therefore, it is totally Unknowable.
Even using the word "God" cannot describe it because it is beyond words. But this word has been used and so has the word One and Love etc.

Man, am I ever sick of the "God is that which holds the universe together" line.  Ever look at the universe?  Seen how many planets crash into each other?  Solar systems wiped out?  Super novas destroying everything then collapsing in on themselves?  Asteroids large and small crashing into the Earth?  Solar flares?

The universe is anything but orderly and controlled.  If this is the main proof of a divinity then I suggest He's really slacking off.

Quote from: "noquarter"Both Pagan and Christian of origination image God as a "Big Mind" which thinks, or imagines, or dreams the cosmos into existence.
The "Stillness" of Pure immeasurable Consciousness (Spirit) stirs to issue forth a "thought".
Consciousness is the basis for existence.
You can understand this from your own experience, because if you were not conscious, nothing would exist for you,nor would you exist for yourself.
However, the ultimate "Source" of all cannot be Consciousness, since before it thinks the first thought Consciousness must be conscious of nothing and therefore unconscious.
In other words, take away the object of Consciousness and Consciousness vanishes with it. Consciousness is always inseparable from that which it is conscious of.
This duality of Consciousness and Object is not the ultimate source, The Absolute Mystery is the ultimate source.
Since it comes before Consciousness it is not something you can be conscious of. Therefore, it is totally Unknowable.
Even using the word "God" cannot describe it because it is beyond words. But this word has been used and so has the word One and Love etc.

Thank you for expanding on your definition. I can tell you've put some thought into it; it's one of the better definitions of it's kind that I've encountered.

It appears to me that what you're putting forth is a duality of existence; on one hand there's the physical, knowable, measurable, etc., ie. 'the cosmos' (let's say, for the sake of this discussion); on the other, you have the "Absolute Mystery", "Consciousness", "Unknowable",  "ultimate source", "Big Mind", whatever you want to call it, ie. "God".

Looking at the first part of the equation, the cosmos, the part of which we can know, I have to wonder what perceptible difference there would be between that and the same cosmos existing independently, in and of itself, where consciousness is a result of biological processes, chemical reactions, etc. What changes? Is it any less beautiful, profound, meaningful, worthwhile, or desirable to those of us fortunate enough to have this one chance to experience it?

Looking at the second part of the equation, what does it add if we, we humans, are here to observe, to experience, to love, to dream, to care about the first part - that which we can know? And given that we do possess consciousness ourselves, and fulfill all the other qualities that define your deity, when you boil it down to its irreducible parts and resign it to a realm outside of what we are able to percieve, how is that distinguishable in any way from nothing?

Quote from: "elliebean"It appears to me that what you're putting forth is a duality of existence; on one hand there's the physical, knowable, measurable, etc., ie. 'the cosmos' (let's say, for the sake of this discussion); on the other, you have the "Absolute Mystery", "Consciousness", "Unknowable",  "ultimate source", "Big Mind", whatever you want to call it, ie. "God".

The Mystery is the dazzling darkness of Consciousness, conscious of nothing. To become conscious of itself it makes itself simultaneously a subject and an object.
The Mystery became manifest to itself from itself and so passed into a state of duality.
The unknowable knows itself by manifesting as the knower and the known.
The looker and the looked at.
Witness and experience.
Consciousness and psyche.
Spirit and soul.

Quote from: "elliebean"Looking at the first part of the equation, the cosmos, the part of which we can know, I have to wonder what perceptible difference there would be between that and the same cosmos existing independently, in and of itself, where consciousness is a result of biological processes, chemical reactions, etc. What changes? Is it any less beautiful, profound, meaningful, worthwhile, or desirable to those of us fortunate enough to have this one chance to experience it?

There is no perceptible difference in the known, the difference occurs within the perceiver.
The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.
Knowing herself/himself to be Mystery ensures the conscious participation in the ultimate purpose.
But of course this is all only a story and is no more valid than your version.
Beauty within recognises beauty without etc.
We all have only one chance and it is Now in this moment.

Quote from: "elliebean"Looking at the second part of the equation, what does it add if we, we humans, are here to observe, to experience, to love, to dream, to care about the first part - that which we can know? And given that we do possess consciousness ourselves, and fulfill all the other qualities that define your deity, when you boil it down to its irreducible parts and resign it to a realm outside of what we are able to percieve, how is that distinguishable in any way from nothing?

The ultimate purpose is Mystery is becoming conscious of itself through us.
Therefore, the more we become consciously aware, of our thoughts, of our actions, of our experiences, and of loves and hates, the more we can take part actively in the unfolding "drama".
I will leave you with this quote from the Gnostic Basilides:

QuoteNothing existed. Not even nothing. The truth, naked of opinion and conceptualization, is that there was not even the One.
And when I say "there was", I don't mean that anything was.

Ps Thank you for listening to my ravings.

Rantings/ravings get you banned here - friendly warning.

Quote from: "noquarter"The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.

Ok, but how do we know the perciever isn't wrong?

QuoteBut of course this is all only a story and is no more valid than your version.

Well, thanks for at least conceeding that.

QuotePs Thank you for listening to my ravings.

You're welcome, but be careful not to stray away from explaining and into preaching, if you plan to stick around on this forum.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "noquarter"The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.

Ok, but how do we know the perciever isn't wrong?

If I perceive, from my experience and my knowledge etc, that the ground of existence is Consciousness and you perceive, from your experience and your knowledge that consciousness derives from chemical and neurological processes in the brain. Who is wrong?
Both ways are correct for each perceiver.
It is like the glass half full and half empty scenario.

Quote from: "noquarter"

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "noquarter"The perceiver knows himself/herself to be Mystery and not just the body and biological processes.

Ok, but how do we know the perciever isn't wrong?

If I perceive, from my experience and my knowledge etc, that the ground of existence is Consciousness and you perceive, from your experience and your knowledge that consciousness derives from chemical and neurological processes in the brain. Who is wrong?
Both ways are correct for each perceiver.
It is like the glass half full and half empty scenario.

Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

Quote from: "Sophus"Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.
The psyche(soul) is the life experiences of the observer, in this sense, the psyshe cannot be said to be "empty".

Quote from: "noquarter"The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.

Logical, I'm on board with you...

Quote from: "noquarter"The psyche(soul) is the life experiences of the observer, in this sense, the psyshe cannot be said to be "empty".

Aww...left turn to Woo Valley, where logic goes to die.    It seems like you're willfully taking something which exists - life experiences - and arbitrarily assigning mystical attributes to it without any reason.  Why do life experiences have to be anything more than life experiences?  By saying life experiences = the psyche = the soul, you're needlessly conflating wildly varying concepts.  Life experiences are real and can be learned from and tell the story of our lives.  There's no reason or necessity behind turning life experiences into some kind of Mystical (capital M) soul nonsense.

noquarter, I think you just stumbled onto the origin of about 1/3 of the religions out there.

Quote from: "noquarter"Aww...left turn to Woo Valley, where logic goes to die.    It seems like you're willfully taking something which exists - life experiences - and arbitrarily assigning mystical attributes to it without any reason.  Why do life experiences have to be anything more than life experiences?  By saying life experiences = the psyche = the soul, you're needlessly conflating wildly varying concepts.  Life experiences are real and can be learned from and tell the story of our lives.  There's no reason or necessity behind turning life experiences into some kind of Mystical (capital M) soul nonsense.

Quote from: "noquarter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.

My point was that, interpretations, although appearing different, can actually denote the same thing. I think we may be more in agreement than I had originally thought.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Aww...left turn to Woo Valley, where logic goes to die.    It seems like you're willfully taking something which exists - life experiences - and arbitrarily assigning mystical attributes to it without any reason.  Why do life experiences have to be anything more than life experiences?  By saying life experiences = the psyche = the soul, you're needlessly conflating wildly varying concepts.  Life experiences are real and can be learned from and tell the story of our lives.  There's no reason or necessity behind turning life experiences into some kind of Mystical (capital M) soul nonsense.

Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_%28psychology%29

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Quote from: "noquarter"Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

The original meaning is irrelevant to our purposes, since we're communicating with each other in the here and now, in common English, not in ancient Greek. Etymology is interesting, but not really illuminating in this discussion thus far.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "noquarter"

Quote from: "Sophus"Eh, that's just trickery with words. The connotations of "full" and "empty" might tell us something about the observer's psyche but in realistic terms the concept itself only matters. The glass contains half of what it can contain.

The analogy of the glass half full or half empty is not pointing to the contents of the glass. It is being used to show that observations about an event can be made from more than one perspective.

My point was that, interpretations, although appearing different, can actually denote the same thing. I think we may be more in agreement than I had originally thought.

I am happy that we are in agreement on this. Thankyou.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "noquarter"Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

The original meaning is irrelevant to our purposes, since we're communicating with each other in the here and now, in common English, not in ancient Greek. Etymology is interesting, but not really illuminating in this discussion thus far.

The breath, is usually taken for granted, even though it is with us in the here and now. I am glad that Sophus, knowingly or unknowingly brought it into awareness in this discussion. It reminds me how much I appreciate my Mother for breathing for me when I was in her womb. From the first conscious breath that I took on my own, through every unconscious breath, to the conscious breath I am taking now. I think it is very relevant, even vitally relevant.

Knowing the history of a word is vital in debate so that both understand what the other is actually saying.  Accepting ad hoc definitions as a contemporary convenience only muddles the discussion as it progresses.  You can both agree that "apple" means "Sin" if you wish to, but you're then going to have to define "Sin" so you're on the same page.  You can not escape the need to have clear definitions in theological debates. Etymology is the means by which we keep the points clear and understood by all parties.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "noquarter"Words are often mistranslated and common usage masks the original meaning. Psyche originates from Greek meaning breath but also encompasses life experience.

The original meaning is irrelevant to our purposes, since we're communicating with each other in the here and now, in common English, not in ancient Greek. Etymology is interesting, but not really illuminating in this discussion thus far.

How will you define yourself outside of yourself? The closest things that you have to define yourself outside of yourself is the reflection which comes from looking at a mirror. Take that mirror away and you have nothing but another being defining you. You can then go a little further using your sense of touch and feeling yourself in order to define yourself but this method will not yield the desire results or definitions. The true is that you have many ways of defining yourself, by philosophical means or scientific means. Humans had made a " GOD " and in making such a God they created words that were not meant to be used to define humans. Humans can have " POWERS " but the powers of God are beyound human comprehensions. This was an original way for the " WEAK " to hope when the " STRONG " rule over them, " you are strong and I'm weak " BUT " there's someone who is " all-powerfull " and that someone is God, who will bring you down. When defining God is defining an ultimate " POWER ". Not so much beyond human comprehensions or imagination, is just giving all that humans can't do. Its impossible for you but is possible for God. When someone tells me that God can make me do this or that I say, " God can't make me smoke, nor eat meat, or used drugs, or cheat on my wife ". In other words God can't make me do that which I don't want to do and that means that there are things which are " IMPOSSIBLE " for GOD if it existed.

You need some Niche and Plato.  You can define your self by virtue of experience.  Shut yourself off from the world and have no input, no vision or sound, and you still have your thoughts. ["A thing is defined by its form; I think, therefore I am."  That is, the being I know to be me is the creature that thinks these thoughts.  Ergo, I know I exist because these thoughts exist.]  

And, just for nothin'... you say your god is beyond human comprehension.  How then would you be able to know what it wants? If it is beyond comprehension, how can Christians know that God hates gays, or Muslims know that Mohamed was Allah's last messenger?  Claiming to "know" for certain the will and intent of a an unknowable is, at the least, contradictory.

Quote from: "hvargas"How will you define yourself outside of yourself? The closest things that you have to define yourself outside of yourself is the reflection which comes from looking at a mirror. Take that mirror away and you have nothing but another being defining you. You can then go a little further using your sense of touch and feeling yourself in order to define yourself but this method will not yield the desire results or definitions. The true is that you have many ways of defining yourself, by philosophical means or scientific means. Humans had made a " GOD " and in making such a God they created words that were not meant to be used to define humans. Humans can have " POWERS " but the powers of God are beyond human comprehensions. This was an original way for the " WEAK " to hope when the " STRONG " rule over them, " you are strong and I'm weak " BUT " there's someone who is " all-powerfull " and that someone is God, who will bring you down. When defining God is defining an ultimate " POWER ". Not so much beyond human comprehensions or imagination, is just giving all that humans can't do. Its impossible for you but is possible for God. When someone tells me that God can make me do this or that I say, " God can't make me smoke, nor eat meat, or used drugs, or cheat on my wife ". In other words God can't make me do that which I don't want to do and that means that there are things which are " IMPOSSIBLE " for GOD if it existed.

Quote from: "Heathen's Guide"You need some Niche and Plato. You can define your self by virtue of experience.

Niche? You mean Nietzsche?

I'm not quite sure what you mean either. Nietzsche was an Existentialist but he hated Plato.

(Sorry, I'm just getting technical.)

"Niche" is an old philosophy pun.  I should never attempt humor before my second cup of coffee.

The Platonic Form is the basic concept you guys have been bouncing around... the idea that you have a "self" that is actually a "soul" or higher-being.  Nietzsche's big thing was the pursuit of this "self", which he called the "Higher Man".

The difference between the two was that Plato saw the self as a manifest part of the human being, while Nietzsche saw it as a process.  So, for Plato the self just "is", even if you're in a coma.  For Nietzsche, the self was a goal to be achieved.  Ever-evolving, and capable of devolving into nothingness if you allow it to (entropy).

I've always thought of Plato as the father of existentialism because he was the one who came up with the idea of the Self as a unique being that functions independent of society.  Socrates et. al. saw the Self as a cog in a social machine.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Heathen's Guide"You need some Niche and Plato. You can define your self by virtue of experience.

Niche? You mean Nietzsche?

I'm not quite sure what you mean either. Nietzsche was an Existentialist but he hated Plato.

That's interesting. I'll have to read up on some Plato. I never thought of him that way.

Quote from: "Heathen's Guide"Man, am I ever sick of the "God is that which holds the universe together" line.  Ever look at the universe?  Seen how many planets crash into each other?  Solar systems wiped out?  Super novas destroying everything then collapsing in on themselves?  Asteroids large and small crashing into the Earth?  Solar flares?

Your next book: The Heathen's Guide to the Galaxy?  

I've got The Heathen's Guide to Xmas ready for Fall 2010, but the publishers want me to do HG to the Apocalypse because of the 2012 crap.  I am now considering how much of a literary whore I want to be...

Quote from: "Sophus"Your next book: The Heathen's Guide to the Galaxy?  

Here is something for your thoughts and a question. Your eyes produce an interpretation of you and therefore not a true image of who you are. When you look at another person what you see is the same, an interpretation of an image. All of that is processed in the brain. In order for your thoughts to form a true image of whatever it must have the true image and not a represantation of what something looks like. Before we can define god (s), we must have its true image and the same will be true for ourselves. The best that we can do is to define some qualities of ourselves be it negative or positive, and this is somewhat of what we can do to define god - with attributes as given by theist or their biblical writings. The question, are you sure 100% that the image of the person next to you is the real one or an interpretation of your sense of vision? When you looked at your own reflection comining from the mirror you get TWO INTERPRETATION. The first from the mirror which travels to the walls of your eyes and the second is reveal in your brain. This will be true for everything in our environment, philosophy or philosopher missed that.