GOD!!! The finite topic for an infinite being

[Wolfie]

How do you know no one read the link? I did, I just did not responed to it

[everar]

Metaphysics in general are so valuable. :] I love the stuff.

But a good poem, metaphysic, or scientific fact -- will speak to someone on a deep level. If it gets too caught up in terminology or wayward references, all it does is crystalize the beliefs of the writer in the act of writing itself. I'm at fault for this in my writing too, in the worst way sometimes.

[Moeboid]

Personally, I believe the existence and even the basic characteristics of the Godhead are in fact quite capable of being demonstrated by means of normal human reasoning. Classic examples of this are found in such concepts as Aristotle’s unmoved mover and Aquinas’ handling of the nature of Deity in questions 2-26 of the first part of the Summa as found here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm. However, his meaning may not be as clear to those unfamiliar with Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics.

I read it, I just didn't have anything worth saying about it. What kind of response were you looking for?

[Sloady]

God is me. And you. And anybody who realizes how much they can change the world on their own. Also, nature.

Also, magnets.

[exoclipse]

I endorse the above post. Any empowering philosophy is a good philosophy(tm).

[everar]

effing magnets, how do they work!!

[Cuddle_Fish]

I think the title of the thread says it all. God would be an infinite being, and if God was all powerful (knowing every out come, being everywhere at once etc) then God effectively does not exist. (I am coming from an existential stand point here/ physical one). To know everything one must be out of the system, therefore not within our plane of existence. God would be infinitely distant from us.

All sorts of crazy things happen at infinity that our finite minds cannot grasp. Such as the curvature of a circle with an infinite radius being zero :b is it even a circle? what is it now?

Another thing! I do not believe God would have a sex. Angels are sexless and they are probably more like their creator than we are. God being defined as a male being comes from the fact that those were male dominated societies at the time. While I have nothing against having a religion I think it is silly to disregard the era which gave it birth. I also find it funny that the Christian God/Jesus is largely depicted as a white male. If you can understand why that doesn't make sense, then you should also understand why God is said to be male. Religion has its politics just like anything else and they actually play a huge part in shaping it. Like someone else said, Jesus wasn't really born in December (I was though lol).

I can't say I 100% discount the existence of a higher being, but I think if there was one it would be smart enough to make themselves known in such a way that the people would accept them. I'm basically saying all gods could be just one pretty smart god.

Also, religion and science are not the same thing at all. It is like comparing apples and orangutangs. Religion is faith based. I like to think of faith as Kierkegaard sees it. It is believing something you will never, ever be able to know is true, but doing it anyway. Trying to prove the existence of God makes you one of little faith. Faith is a leap! It is jumping off something with your eyes closed and hoping one specific thing will happen. Someone 100% in their faith has no problem with science.

Science is about making observations and predictions from there. One thing non-sciency folk tend to forget is that every single theory or law is up for review or change. It is understood by the science community that at the end of every [This works] there is [for now] tacked onto the end. It is not about what is right or wrong, but what works. Also, experiments are repeatable, the experiences of individuals are not. I cannot go chat up a burning bush for example, but you can test that yes, things do indeed fall towards Earth.
I'd define science as defining the universe and all phenomena to the best of our ability.

I think people of little faith (and I don't mean that as an attack at anyone on the forum, but generally) are afraid of what might be understood by science in the future. Why should that harm what you believe? So what if we evolved from a primordial ooze? Maybe God creating the universe was meant to be more literal. He created the universe so that events would unfold and create humans and life one Earth.

One last point: If God created the universe, then why would you deny discoveries of God's hard work?

sorry for the books

[Boulderheart]

I think that to have faith, is to believe in something that cannot be 100% proven. Now I'm an Atheist, but at the same time i believe science can be wrong. Science only really developed with Galilee and Newton, before then everyone took the Bible as fact, but before then, science was just researching what God had done and how it worked.

Now we may take that the planets revolve around the sun as fact now, but does anyone think it could be proven wrong now? Personally, I don't need to have faith in that theory, because I believe it is correct. But the way we discover things and experiment things now may not be perfect, as Christians many years ago thought that taking things word for word from the Bible was the way to learn truth (no offense to any creationists).

But relating to God, personally I don't believe, but i recognize i could be wrong, and that there is no way to prove or disprove his existence, all i know is why assume a God, when nothing definitely suggests his existence.

[everar]

To know everything one must be out of the system, therefore not within our plane of existence. God would be infinitely distant from us.

Google 'Panentheism' -- you may find it contrarily insightful for what it's worth anyway. :] In the mythos and texts of many faiths, including Christianity, divine beings show human faults and emotions. I'll give you that it's incredibly strange to have to contend with the concept of a divine being. Would we picture them as exemplary sterile, permanently perfect constructs, ideal role models, etc? Such beings would give us no insight about ourselves, which is why I think most texts delve into humanness, mistakes, vices, duality, nonduality, paradox and ambiguity instead of just robotic perfection.

In spirituality our ultimate goal still seems to discover ourselves, but in a way that synthesizes with other selves in order to form a collective self; but as we may find, it divides us as well, when trying to subsume our various perspectives under one banner. It's a joyous fool's errand.

[I EAT pain]

I think no religion is really right and God is just everything but not everywhere, brcause he IS everything. If that makes sense...