What is God?

[Tek]

I'm going to come out of my lurking corner for a bit....



The thing here is that anyone who has experienced God presumes that what they experienced must be God because they already believe that God/gods/a higher power exists. But how do we know that what they experienced was, in fact, a God/gods/higher power? Not everyone has the same experience when it comes to deities.

Which then brings up the problem of: What is God? That IS the thread title, but its something that's hardly been touched upon by you guys, and its important to consider in this mess of a discussion y'all have going on here. Is God a magical human-esque entity? A multi-dimensional wavelength? A flying mass of spaghetti and meatballs? The innermost reaches of the human psyche? Beings from another world? Something else entirely?

If nobody even know what the hell a God is, how can we know that people have had experiences with a god? Because of some pre-conceived notion that there is/are one(s)? For all we know, those people could've encountered something else.

Read my first post, then try again.

Oh, so you have to already believe in a God in order to experience a god? Well, I believe that Arceus is the one true God, but if you want me to prove it to you, you have to think the same way as me. Tek, that's a crappy arguement and you should know it. You can't pull that one if you're trying to convince people who don't believe in the existence of a God/gods/higher power.

...Well, there's me putting my 2 cents in. Probably didn't come out quite right...

No, you have to have a mythic worldview to experience a magical superhero God, because that God arises only in that worldspace. Imagine trying to get Hitler to understand that human beings are equal regardless of race or creed, or trying to convince Ghandi that women are inferior to men. You can only see what your worldview allows you to see.

And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It would be pointless to try, because few if any are actually open to a new vision of the world. If someone had tried to convince me to think differently a few years ago, it would have been a waste of breath.

I'm presenting my experience of God, along with a framework to better understand all experiences of God, and defending those things when they are criticized.

 

[Nah]

Read my first post, then try again.

I did. You're going to have to dumb down your essay for me.

No, you have to have a mythic worldview to experience a magical superhero God, because that God arises only in that worldspace. Imagine trying to get Hitler to understand that human beings are equal regardless of race or creed, or trying to convince Ghandi that women are inferior to men. You can only see what your worldview allows you to see.

Which kinda comes off as, "you can only see what you want to see". Perhaps you want there to be a god/higher power, so that is why you believe there is one. But why would that make it real?

And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It would be pointless to try, because few if any are actually open to a new vision of the world. If someone had tried to convince me to think differently a few years ago, it would have been a waste of breath.

I'm presenting my experience of God, along with a framework to better understand all experiences of God, and defending those things when they are criticized.

Well, I'm glad you feel this way.

 

[BadPokemon]

Yes, it is. But just so we're clear, faith is not fact.



Strictly from a historical point of view:

The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, 1 Chron. 16:30). However, modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. Therefore, the passages cannot even remotely be seen as historical fact.

Second, according to young Earth creationists (of which it is apparent you are), that take a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago (hence your stated belief that the world is about 6000 years old). But this assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology. You would have to dismiss all sciences and the facts discovered through long and careful study in order to sustain your belief in a young Earth.

Now, as you indicated, you are perfectly free to believe as you wish. However, that does not alter the fact that beliefs cannot be considered factual. In order for something to be considered fact it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what science does that faith does not. The only thing historical about the bible are how long ago the stories that are contained within were written.

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/bible-say-anything-astronomy

Carbon dating is proven to be inaccurate. I wouldn't trust it of my life was on the balance. Finding the age of fossils and rocks uses circular reasoning. Therefore, you couldn't actually know the age of the Earth. There is evidence to disprove that the earth is millions of years old. It would be more like 6k to 10k. Petrified trees provide a great example. Things can petrify in as little as 5 years, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Livewire]

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/bible-say-anything-astronomy

Carbon dating is proven to be inaccurate. I wouldn't trust it of my life was on the balance. Finding the age of fossils and rocks uses circular reasoning. Therefore, you couldn't actually know the age of the Earth. There is evidence to disprove that the earth is millions of years old. It would be more like 6k to 10k. Petrified trees provide a great example. Things can petrify in as little as 5 years, contrary to popular belief.

Carbon dating is accurate, give or take a few years depending on the isotopes measured and what exactly you're dating. So I wouldn't dismiss it simply becuase you don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Your views on how scientific things work are so completely backward and untrue it's baffling as to how you could have possibly reached that mindset. The scientific processes here are understood at a pretty basic level; the best part is that they're still true whether you choose to "believe" in them or not.

 

[Ivysaur]

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/bible-say-anything-astronomy

Carbon dating is proven to be inaccurate. I wouldn't trust it of my life was on the balance. Finding the age of fossils and rocks uses circular reasoning. Therefore, you couldn't actually know the age of the Earth. There is evidence to disprove that the earth is millions of years old. It would be more like 6k to 10k. Petrified trees provide a great example. Things can petrify in as little as 5 years, contrary to popular belief.

Well, if you are going to link to your sources, I'll link to mine too: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

(Mine is larger :P)

Oh, and trees can petrify in 5 years... under laboratory conditions only. I doubt those existed before the 20th century, and I doubt any scientist managed to replicate those inside mines found years ago.

 

[BadPokemon]

Carbon dating is accurate, give or take a few years depending on the isotopes measured and what exactly you're dating. So I wouldn't dismiss it simply becuase you don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Your views on how scientific things work are so completely backward and untrue it's baffling as to how you could have possibly reached that mindset. The scientific processes here are understood at a pretty basic level; the best part is that they're still true whether you choose to "believe" in them or not.

https://www.creationtoday.org/carbon-dating/

https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Carbon dating is extremely innacurate.

@ivysaur

A women in a coffin buried underground was petrified in 5 years.

Petrified trees still disprove the Big Bang.

 

[Ivysaur]

I'll concede that carbon dating starts going haywire when going back over 50~60,000 years (which is 10 times longer than your purported age of the Earth). Dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago, so obviously carbon dating doesn't work on dinosaur fossils.

That's why there is a thing called Radiometric dating that analyzes the amount of radiactive materials left in those items and can go back billions of years. So no need to focus on carbon dating, it doesn't go back that far. Focus on this method, that has dated "Samples collected from volcanic ash and pumice that overlie glacial debris in Owens Valley, California" as far back as 700,000 years.

Second, petrified wood does not disprove the big bang. That's like saying elevators disprove the theory of relativity. Do you even know what the big bang is? Because, you know, the chance that a coffin (link to story please) could petrify faster does not mean that forests couldn't have petrified millions of years ago- how long it would have taken for it to happen is unrelated to how long ago it happened.

And third, the fact that trees can petrify in "5 years" does not automatically disprove every single other piece of evidence. It's like saying that since you aren't wearing sport shoes, you can't be a tennis player, even if you are holding a racquet, tennis balls, and are entering a tennis court. It's doesn't work that way. Either you disprove everything, or you haven't done anything.

 

[BadPokemon]

I'll concede that carbon dating starts going haywire when going back over 50~60,000 years (which is 10 times longer than your purported age of the Earth). Dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago, so obviously carbon dating doesn't work on dinosaur fossils.

That's why there is a thing called Radiometric dating that analyzes the amount of radiactive materials left in those items and can go back billions of years. So no need to focus on carbon dating, it doesn't go back that far. Focus on this method, that has dated "Samples collected from volcanic ash and pumice that overlie glacial debris in Owens Valley, California" as far back as 700,000 years.

Second, petrified wood does not disprove the big bang. That's like saying elevators disprove the theory of relativity. Do you even know what the big bang is? Because, you know, the chance that a coffin (link to story please) could petrify faster does not mean that forests couldn't have petrified millions of years ago- how long it would have taken for it to happen is unrelated to how long ago it happened.

And third, the fact that trees can petrify in "5 years" does not automatically disprove every single other piece of evidence. It's like saying that since you aren't wearing sport shoes, you can't be a tennis player, even if you are holding a racquet, tennis balls, and are entering a tennis court. It's doesn't work that way. Either you disprove everything, or you haven't done anything.

My bad; it disproves the conception that earth is millions of years old.

 

[Livewire]

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/bible-say-anything-astronomy

Carbon dating is proven to be inaccurate. I wouldn't trust it of my life was on the balance. Finding the age of fossils and rocks uses circular reasoning. Therefore, you couldn't actually know the age of the Earth. There is evidence to disprove that the earth is millions of years old. It would be more like 6k to 10k. Petrified trees provide a great example. Things can petrify in as little as 5 years, contrary to popular belief.

https://www.creationtoday.org/carbon-dating/

https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Carbon dating is extremely innacurate.

@ivysaur

A women in a coffin buried underground was petrified in 5 years.

Petrified trees still disprove the Big Bang.

Citing obvious creationist propaganda doesn't help reinforce anything you say. That's like quoting a white supremacist newspaper who said Adoph Hitler was a good guy.

 

[BadPokemon]

Citing obvious creationist propaganda doesn't help reinforce anything you say. That's like quoting a white supremacist newspaper who said Adoph Hitler was a good guy.

It is full of facts. I was stating my source. And it's not like that. You could post a video, why god is dead, and I could just as easily say its propaganda.

 

[Dakotah]

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/bible-say-anything-astronomy

Carbon dating is proven to be inaccurate. I wouldn't trust it of my life was on the balance. Finding the age of fossils and rocks uses circular reasoning. Therefore, you couldn't actually know the age of the Earth. There is evidence to disprove that the earth is millions of years old. It would be more like 6k to 10k. Petrified trees provide a great example. Things can petrify in as little as 5 years, contrary to popular belief.

Well, since we're offering links, here's mine:

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

It is full of facts. I was stating my source. And it's not like that. You could post a video, why god is dead, and I could just as easily say its propaganda.

But it's true that quoting a biased source discredits the argument being made. To make a credible argument. you have to cite information provided by a non-partisan, non-biased source, one who has no stake in a subject one way or the other. The link you offered was clearly biased towards one view, therefore its information, no matter how the data was obtained by the source, is unreliable and therefore cannot credibly be used to support your position. The same would be true if the source was biased in the other direction as well. It could not be used to support my position because it's presentation of the data is unreliable.

 

[Demon Wolf]

God is an imaginary fig ment but he was alive some gods but some people could've been on drugz while seeing this weird stuff never kno

 

[BadPokemon]

Well, since we're offering links, here's mine:

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating



But it's true that quoting a biased source discredits the argument being made. To make a credible argument. you have to cite information provided by a non-partisan, non-biased source, one who has no stake in a subject one way or the other. The link you offered was clearly biased towards one view, therefore its information, no matter how the data was obtained by the source, is unreliable and therefore cannot credibly be used to support your position. The same would be true if the source was biased in the other direction as well. It could not be used to support my position because it's presentation of the data is unreliable.

It's not very easy to find one. Most studies are biased in some ways, and most (it seems) against Christians.

 

[Dakotah]

It's not very easy to find one. Most studies are biased in some ways, and most (it seems) against Christians.

It's actually easier to do than you think. The first thing to do is to ignore any conclusions made by any group that advocates for a specific position. For instance, I would no more trust the conclusions of a gay rights group's polling than I would an anti-gay rights group's polling, because you will always get the conclusions you pay for.

Peer reviewed scientific journals, on the other hand, are probably the least biased studies you will ever find. Not only because the conclusions of the authors can be tested, but also the methodology used to reach the conclusions. The ones that do not pass muster are swiftly discredited and pulled from the journals.

Now, as to your perceptions that most studies do not favour Christianity. I would simply say this. Any study that reaches a conclusion contrary to the beliefs of any religious denomination, cannot automatically be considered an attack on those religious beliefs. The purpose of scientific studies is to test theories through rigorous testing and careful observation. But one thing to keep in mind about such studies, is that unlike religious texts, which do not change over time (except interpretations and translations of the text into other languages as evidenced by the over 100 different versions of the Bible), the conclusions of scientific studies are constantly changing as new data is learned.

Take Einstein's Theory of Relativity for example. For decades it was accepted by the scientific community to be the most plausible explanation for why gravity worked the way it does. But recently, a newly discovered three-star system is proving provocative as scientists studying the system's properties suggest they may violate a key concept of this theory: the strong equivalence principle, which states that the effect of gravity on a body does not depend on the nature or internal structure of that body. The scientists said, "Finding a deviation from the strong equivalence principle would indicate a breakdown of General Relativity and would point us toward a new, revised theory of gravity."

So science is always questioning itself. It is always challenging the conclusions of scientists. Religion, on the other hand, does not do this. This is why it is so easy for science to contradict assertions made by religion. But it is not an attack. And in fact, many of the scientists who do this work are Christians themselves. But what they don't do (and shouldn't) is allow their personal religious beliefs to corrupt their work. They have to push all pre-conceptions, all beliefs, aside in order for the data they gather to be properly analysed and to reach an un-biased conclusion.

I personally think that the best among us who are religious are those who do not accept blindly what religion teaches them, but rather constantly challenge and question the teachings of the Church. It is blind faith that is the most direct route to ignorance.

Scientific studies may refute your beliefs. But that in of itself is not an attack. Rather its an opportunity for you to challenge your own beliefs. And who knows, maybe the conclusions of these studies will actually help to strengthen your faith. You have to look at them objectively and not with a narrow view that sees these studies as an attack on your faith.

 

[Timbjerr]

So science is always questioning itself. It is always challenging the conclusions of scientists. Religion, on the other hand, does not do this. This is why it is so easy for science to contradict assertions made by religion. But it is not an attack. And in fact, many of the scientists who do this work are Christians themselves. But what they don't do (and shouldn't) is allow their personal religious beliefs to corrupt their work. They have to push all pre-conceptions, all beliefs, aside in order for the data they gather to be properly analysed and to reach an un-biased conclusion.

I personally think that the best among us who are religious are those who do not accept blindly what religion teaches them, but rather constantly challenge and question the teachings of the Church. It is blind faith that is the most direct route to ignorance.

Scientific studies may refute your beliefs. But that in of itself is not an attack. Rather its an opportunity for you to challenge your own beliefs. And who knows, maybe the conclusions of these studies will actually help to strengthen your faith. You have to look at them objectively and not with a narrow view that sees these studies as an attack on your faith.

This I agree with 100%. For an example of such scientific/religious synthesizing, just go back and read the post I made back on the very first page of this thread. I still very much consider myself a Roman Catholic, but instead of blindly following what my priests and parishioners have told me about God, I've grown up and made my own perceptions based on the way I observe the world.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

I personally think that the best among us who are religious are those who do not accept blindly what religion teaches them, but rather constantly challenge and question the teachings of the Church. It is blind faith that is the most direct route to ignorance.

Everything else you've said is true, but I strongly disagree with this one.

Do you know who founded the Big Bang Theory? Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest. Who's the father of genetics? Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk. Who founded crystallography? Father René Just Haüy. I could give more examples of devout orthodox Catholics, like Henri Becquerel (discovered radioactivity), Louis Braille (invented braille), Galileo Galilei (even if he was persecuted, he remained very faithful to the Church), Johannes Gutenburg (invented the printing press), and so much more.

According to your logic, the best citizens of Spain are those who actively disobey the Spanish Constitution, because apparently following the government is blind faith.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point and feel free to correct me if I have.

 

[Dakotah]

Everything else you've said is true, but I strongly disagree with this one.

Do you know who founded the Big Bang Theory? Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest. Who's the father of genetics? Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk. Who founded crystallography? Father René Just Haüy. I could give more examples of devout orthodox Catholics, like Henri Becquerel (discovered radioactivity), Louis Braille (invented braille), Galileo Galilei (even if he was persecuted, he remained very faithful to the Church), Johannes Gutenburg (invented the printing press), and so much more.

According to your logic, the best citizens of Spain are those who actively disobey the Spanish Constitution, because apparently following the government is blind faith.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point and feel free to correct me if I have.

Yes, I'm afraid you have misunderstood my point. Because all those people you've mention actually did research the proper way. They didn't allow their pre-conceptions or personal beliefs to cloud their research. They reached the conclusions they did because of the data that they had. It doesn't matter if you're following religion or if you're following government. Any time you allow pre-conception and personal beliefs to cloud your research, the conclusions you reach are inevitably corrupted. You have to approach research with an open mind and not allow outside influences to affect the outcomes. The only thing that should affect your conclusions is the data that you receive, regardless of where it leads, either confirming or disproving your original hypothesis.

I hope this clears up what I was trying to say.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

Yes, I'm afraid you have misunderstood my point. Because all those people you've mention actually did research the proper way. They didn't allow their pre-conceptions or personal beliefs to cloud their research. They reached the conclusions they did because of the data that they had. It doesn't matter if you're following religion or if you're following government. Any time you allow pre-conception and personal beliefs to cloud your research, the conclusions you reach are inevitably corrupted. You have to approach research with an open mind and not allow outside influences to affect the outcomes. The only thing that should affect your conclusions is the data that you receive, regardless of where it leads, either confirming or disproving your original hypothesis.

I hope this clears up what I was trying to say.

Okay, I get it. But you still mentioned "constantly challenging and questioning the Church". Every person I mentioned was strongly devout in his faith, and disobeyed none of the teachings of the Church.

 

[BadPokemon]

It's actually easier to do than you think. The first thing to do is to ignore any conclusions made by any group that advocates for a specific position. For instance, I would no more trust the conclusions of a gay rights group's polling than I would an anti-gay rights group's polling, because you will always get the conclusions you pay for.

Peer reviewed scientific journals, on the other hand, are probably the least biased studies you will ever find. Not only because the conclusions of the authors can be tested, but also the methodology used to reach the conclusions. The ones that do not pass muster are swiftly discredited and pulled from the journals.

Now, as to your perceptions that most studies do not favour Christianity. I would simply say this. Any study that reaches a conclusion contrary to the beliefs of any religious denomination, cannot automatically be considered an attack on those religious beliefs. The purpose of scientific studies is to test theories through rigorous testing and careful observation. But one thing to keep in mind about such studies, is that unlike religious texts, which do not change over time (except interpretations and translations of the text into other languages as evidenced by the over 100 different versions of the Bible), the conclusions of scientific studies are constantly changing as new data is learned.

Take Einstein's Theory of Relativity for example. For decades it was accepted by the scientific community to be the most plausible explanation for why gravity worked the way it does. But recently, a newly discovered three-star system is proving provocative as scientists studying the system's properties suggest they may violate a key concept of this theory: the strong equivalence principle, which states that the effect of gravity on a body does not depend on the nature or internal structure of that body. The scientists said, "Finding a deviation from the strong equivalence principle would indicate a breakdown of General Relativity and would point us toward a new, revised theory of gravity."

So science is always questioning itself. It is always challenging the conclusions of scientists. Religion, on the other hand, does not do this. This is why it is so easy for science to contradict assertions made by religion. But it is not an attack. And in fact, many of the scientists who do this work are Christians themselves. But what they don't do (and shouldn't) is allow their personal religious beliefs to corrupt their work. They have to push all pre-conceptions, all beliefs, aside in order for the data they gather to be properly analysed and to reach an un-biased conclusion.

I personally think that the best among us who are religious are those who do not accept blindly what religion teaches them, but rather constantly challenge and question the teachings of the Church. It is blind faith that is the most direct route to ignorance.

Scientific studies may refute your beliefs. But that in of itself is not an attack. Rather its an opportunity for you to challenge your own beliefs. And who knows, maybe the conclusions of these studies will actually help to strengthen your faith. You have to look at them objectively and not with a narrow view that sees these studies as an attack on your faith.

I didn't mean the discoveries and publishings attack Christians (though some do). I meant that the discoveries are led by secular scientists, and written by a secular author. Therefore, it is hard to find a neutral publishing. Most (if not all) scientific articles/videos are either for or against religion. But not neccessarily attacking them. It is hard to find a neutral post.

 

[Oryx]

I didn't mean the discoveries and publishings attack Christians (though some do). I meant that the discoveries are led by secular scientists, and written by a secular author. Therefore, it is hard to find a neutral publishing. Most (if not all) scientific articles/videos are either for or against religion. But not neccessarily attacking them. It is hard to find a neutral post.

If you define secular as inherently not neutral, what do you define neutral as? By that logic, certainly the author being Christian would imply a bias towards Christianity. Since the options are atheist/agnostic, non-religious, Christian, or religion but not Christian, which one of these options is neutral? I would argue the one without religion would be the most neutral.