Personal God

[DevilSolution]

Doesnt everyone have a personal god? whether that be defined in terms of an omnipotent, benevolent being to being oneself?

 

Even ones beliefs could be defined as god, the structure of ones perception.

 

cognito ergo sum?

 

As such, if no one has any objections, why is science so objective of a combined belief?? I dont mean in abrahamic religion persay, i just mean in a combined belief in some form of creation. To conceive of something from nothing is beyond belief.

Edited December 11, 2013 by DevilSolution

[ydoaPs]

Yes, and everyone has a floofinigan. Labeling different objects with the same label doesn't make them the same thing. You're literally advocating systematic equivocation. But to what end? What's the point?

 

If 'floofinigan' means whatever someone wants it to mean, it means nothing. The whole point of language is communication.

[DevilSolution]

Yes, and everyone has a floofinigan. Labeling different objects with the same label doesn't make them the same thing. You're literally advocating systematic equivocation. But to what end? What's the point?

 

If 'floofinigan' means whatever someone wants it to mean, it means nothing. The whole point of language is communication.

 

Because i quite specifically equated belief of god to creation, if its determined everyone must fundamentally believe in something, do we not all believe in some form of creation??

 

Between neurology, philosophy and science there are egg shells, i wish to crack them all

Yes, and everyone has a floofinigan. Labeling different objects

 

I also made clear that god is subjective not objective, the point being that obviously subjective beliefs combine in to a combined belief ad these combined beliefs seem to be condemned by the pseudo intellects.

Edited December 11, 2013 by DevilSolution

[Phi for All]

Why would the default state be one of irrational belief in supernatural explanations? Why do people who remain skeptical and refuse to put strong belief in things they can't possibly know about get called "pseudo intellects" who "condemn" the believers? It seems to me that the neutral atheists are being persecuted by the zealots.

[Endy0816]

As such, if no one has any objections, why is science so objective of a combined belief??

 

Isn't science supposed to be objective?

[Phi for All]

 

Isn't science supposed to be objective?

 

I think he meant "critical" instead of "objective" when he said, "Why is science so objective of a combined belief??"

[iNow]

Doesnt everyone have a personal god?

No.

[Alan McDougall]

No.

 

Are you sure? We humans seem to find something to worship, it appears to be an intrinsic need of our kind, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,. Mao Zedong, Muhammad Ali, Carl Sagan, Darwin, (Mine Albert Einstein), Yahweh, Baal, Usaan Bolt, if we don't believe in a Big man in the Sky" we find another god to worship and call, him/he our "Hero"

[iNow]

Are you sure?

Yes, I am sure that not all humans have a personal god.

 

We humans seem to find something to worship, it appears to be an intrinsic need of our kind, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,. Mao Zedong, Muhammad Ali, Carl Sagan, Darwin, (Mine Albert Einstein), Yahweh, Baal, Usaan Bolt, if we don't believe in a Big man in the Sky" we find another god to worship and call, him/he our "Hero"

Again, no. Please try to recognize that your personal worldview or approach to the universe does not necessarily apply or map to all of humanity. That is little more than a faulty generalization.

[tar]

iNow,

 

While one's personal worldview does not necessarily map to all of humanity, there are areas in which one person's worldview jives with another's.

 

A theory, might be that each of us considers a worldview that encompasses everybody elses, as well. That is, if one's worldview is correct, it must be consistent with the world. (being that the world consists of other worldview holders, other worldview holders are important to the consideration of the world).

 

In this regard, the most objective viewpoint a person can take, is by concieving of a worldview holder that trumps not only oneself, but the other guy, as well. Alan McDougall proposes that everybody has a personal god, and it is in regards to the conception of an overacrching "view", greater than one's own, that I would tend to agree with him.

 

Even the sophist is defeated by the fact that someone else can witness their sophistry. And in this, there IS a mapping of one person's worldview to the worldview of another.

 

A "new ager", a believer in God, as well as the astral plane, and the readings of Edgar Cayce and such, asked me if I believed in a higher power. "Higher than me? Well certainly, I would have to believe that."

 

"Just not the way you are proposing it to be. Your way does not make sense to me. I remain cynical as to Edgar's contact with another plane of existence, that is not accessable to the rest of us."

 

For that, for explainations of the subconscious mind, and our own, each of our own connections to the the world, in ways that can not be shaken or taken away by any other, one has to both accept a large body of evidence that requires acknowledgement and agreement, and allow for a certain portion of evidence that can be taken at face value, that is absolutely true, but one needs no permission from anybody else, to behold.

 

Such a beholding of the world, that does not require anybody else's permission, is the parchment upon which one's personal god can be securely mapped to the worldview of others. And each can decide what is possible and impossible, important and trivial, seen by all, or kept secret or obtainable by just a few or just a one based on it. Since this god, is not therefore shared by all, agreed upon by all, and evident to all, by the same name, with the same characteristics and abilities and purposes and such, and there is no way, or reason to ask for agreement from any more objective a view than your own, about it...it must be a "personal" god, that you have.

 

Be it math, or the objective reality described by science, or the God of the Jews, or the astral plain, or the "force" in Star Wars, or the human species in Humanism, or the Secret of the Vedas, or the Rainbow Bridge, or Goodness and Hope, or whatever...a mapping of the one can be made to the other, sketched on the same parchment of reality, we all have at our disposal. A human mind.

 

Regards, TAR2

Anyway, Merry Christmas to any and all that ever shook the jingle bell...and heard its sound. (Polar Express)

Edited December 24, 2013 by tar

[Alan McDougall]

Yes, I am sure that not all humans have a personal god.

 

Again, no. Please try to recognize that your personal worldview or approach to the universe does not necessarily apply or map to all of humanity. That is little more than a faulty generalization.

 

Really don't agree with you, we humans make gods out of our heroes, any suggestion that differs in the least from yours is always faulty?

Why would the default state be one of irrational belief in supernatural explanations? Why do people who remain skeptical and refuse to put strong belief in things they can't possibly know about get called "pseudo intellects" who "condemn" the believers? It seems to me that the neutral atheists are being persecuted by the zealots.

 

Now a real zealot can be found in the person of Richard Dawkins, his books are everywhere, 'The god delusional", The selfish gene" Go onto YouTube and you find his videos everywhere. What puzzles me about this very intelligent man, is his agenda, does he want to remove hope from the otherwise hopeless, does he want society to bend to his concept of godlessness? Is he an evangelist of some sort of new religion called "New Atheism" ??

 

Just like all the other self-righteous preachers with their own particular perception of truth and reality, I will never follow him or his teachings and reserve the right to make up my own mind, without his help or input into my life.

 

Enjoy Christmas with your family

 

God Bless

 

Alan

[iNow]

we humans make gods out of our heroes

Again, all I can do is repeat. You might do this, but not everyone does.

[Alan McDougall]

Again, all I can do is repeat. You might do this, but not everyone does.

 

Thus you , unlike most people have never had a person that you looked up to with some awe, never exalted another human, such as Albert Einstein, which I assume you might have thought as one of the greatest or even greatest theoretic physicists of all time.

 

My heroes have changed a lot since I was a boy.

[Moontanman]

Thus you , unlike most people have never had a person that you looked up to with some awe, never exalted another human, such as Albert Einstein, which I assume you might have thought as one of the greatest or even greatest theoretic physicists of all time.

 

My heroes have changed a lot since I was a boy.

God and hero are not the same thing Alan...

[iNow]

Indeed. I'd much sooner call them role-models or inspirations or even mentors than I would call them gods.

[doG]

 

do we not all believe in some form of creation??

 

No actually. I believe time and matter have existed for eternity. Why believe everything or anything came from nothing?

[Alan McDougall]

 

No actually. I believe time and matter have existed for eternity. Why believe everything or anything came from nothing?

 

Well if you are right in that time and matter existed for eternity, how do we get over the entropy barrier etc in an eternal reality?

[iNow]

WTF does any of this have to do with having personal gods?

[Alan McDougall]

WTF does any of this have to do with having personal gods?

 

Swearing by the use of abbreviation's is still swearing in my book!

[Moontanman]

Swearing by the use of abbreviation's is still swearing in my book!

ROFLMAO

[iNow]

Answer the question.

[Alan McDougall]

Answer the question.

 

Which question, question from whom??, as for me I will never answer a question that that starts with a curse or swear, pose it again in a polite manner and we might take it seriously!

[iNow]

In post #3, DS asked:

do we not all believe in some form of creation??

In response, in post #16 doG replied:

No actually. I believe time and matter have existed for eternity. Why believe everything or anything came from nothing?

And in post # 17 you replied to doG:

Well if you are right in that time and matter existed for eternity, how do we get over the entropy barrier etc in an eternal reality?

I asked you WTF that has to do with the thread about people having a personal god, and you have yet to show even a modicum of integrity and offer a non-evasive response to this request. Instead, you've chosen to proceed in the manner of an oversensitive wanker and share a series of self-evidently dickish responses about your outdated, asinine and puritanical online conversational expectations and to instead rail on about how the acronym WTF is an affront to your delicate sensibilities that is simply too much for your pious self to bear.

 

Here's the point since you seem to need it spelled out for you: If you'd like to explore the idea of entropy barriers, you should likely do so in another thread, such as in the physics or astronomy section of the site. Alternatively, simply don't reply at all so as to do your part in not taking the OP even farther off-topic than you already have.

 

Now, perhaps you could at least try to put forth a response that doesn't suggest you have little interest other than being an insufferable pain in the ass and that doesn't suggest to others that your posts are coming from a petulant child. Perhaps you could do so while avoiding the implication that I am in any way whatsoever subject to either your instructions or demands like some schoolboy there to suck down whatever nonsense you happen to spew and just answer the fucking question or concede you cannot so we can move forward.

 

This will be my last reply to this tangent with you. If you find it insufficiently polite to "take seriously," then I suppose that will be a loss through which I'll have to find a way to suffer and a grief I will simply have to manage.

[Alan McDougall]

In post #3, DS asked:

In response, in post #16 doG replied:

And in post # 17 you replied to doG:

I asked you WTF that has to do with the thread about people having a personal god, and you have yet to show even a modicum of integrity and offer a non-evasive response to this request. Instead, you've chosen to proceed in the manner of an oversensitive wanker and share a series of self-evidently dickish responses about your outdated, asinine and puritanical online conversational expectations and to instead rail on about how the acronym WTF is an affront to your delicate sensibilities that is simply too much for your pious self to bear.

 

Here's the point since you seem to need it spelled out for you: If you'd like to explore the idea of entropy barriers, you should likely do so in another thread, such as in the physics or astronomy section of the site. Alternatively, simply don't reply at all so as to do your part in not taking the OP even farther off-topic than you already have.

 

Now, perhaps you could at least try to put forth a response that doesn't suggest you have little interest other than being an insufferable pain in the ass and that doesn't suggest to others that your posts are coming from a petulant child. Perhaps you could do so while avoiding the implication that I am in any way whatsoever subject to either your instructions or demands like some schoolboy there to suck down whatever nonsense you happen to spew and just answer the fucking question or concede you cannot so we can move forward.

 

This will be my last reply to this tangent with you. If you find it insufficiently polite to "take seriously," then I suppose that will be a loss through which I'll have to find a way to suffer and a grief I will simply have to manage.

 

Ahh ! So you are really human and get very hot under the collar, especially when when I don't give answers to questions that are obviously impossible to prove. Your poetic license is appalling and insults reveal how great your ego is and how easily it can do offended. Still you remain stubborn and refuse to take advice to be polite and continue to swear in the forum , I wonder if forum rules permit this unpleasant method of communication between members. Your statre4ment that I am puritanical is total garbage t I have lived a life full of fun, unbound by any religious dogma or scientific dogma in fact!

 

Before referring to someone as asinine, go and take a good look in the mirror, in one of your posts to me when I said "I was curious why an obvious atheist like you haunts a religious forum and if you had an agenda', your reply was some in the line of freeing deluded theists from ignorance. Thus you have elevated and exalted yourself as a source of truth and made it your purpose, to free the peasants from superstition.

 

We humans have been programmed by evolution to perceive what we need to perceive in order to survive in the environment of planet earth. A chameleon, likewise perceives what it needs to perceive and its brain, via its eye, only responds to movement.This god who you state I have not given even one iota of proof for his existence, is beyond my ability of perception, Why do you insist on some sort of scientific proof for an entity that cannot be scientifically proved. Maybe you have a hidden desire from someone to come up with an absolute truth that a personal god indeed exists and that he loves and cares for you deeply!

 

You dismiss that consciousness exists in the confines of your brain, yet we know scientifically that just by observing a quantum particle, we alter its state and the state of other particles to which is connected. Much of science makes no logical science yet we accept it as fact, maybe the god who makes no sense to you, exists despite your logic that says he does not.

 

Thus consciousness is relevant to this thread, in that we communicate with God using our consciousness and the personal god is a telepathic conscious entity that listens

 

 

Sir James Jeans once quoted that ' "The more I look at the universe the more it looks like a great thought than a great machine".

 

To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour

 

(William Blake)

 

I mentioned entropy here, because it is relevant to both the existence of a personal God, thus;if god exists, how does he avoid the steady loss of energy dissipation, that leads to the eventual total; chaos or maximum entropy of the universe and all that it contains. Thus if such an entity exists, and is eternal, it must sustain itself by some other means, that might be outside our concept of time, energy or space.

 

The post in which brought up entropy was also a response to another member, who said that he/she believed that matter, time and energy have existed forever, and I said that was not possible because the flow of entropy would have dissipated all energy into the heat sink of the expanding void long ago.

 

Our universe is unimaginably old, relative to us and our human civilization, thus it is within the bounds of possibility that out there in the great vast somewhere, exists a civilization of sentient being billions of years in advance of our and could easily pass themselves off as god to us.

[doG]

 

Well if you are right in that time and matter existed for eternity, how do we get over the entropy barrier etc in an eternal reality?

 

Imagine the possibility that the observable universe is but a subset of a larger universe beyond our observation capability wherein the observable universe was simply a redistribution of matter that had collapsed in that larger universe, perhaps through a big crunch, and gone through an event we refer to as the big bang. The observable universe may appear to us as a closed system even though it could actually be part of a larger system, a system which could possibly be infinite.

 

I am hesitant to conclude that all we are able to see is all there is simply because it is all we can see. Draw no conclusions before their time.