NotBlinded Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I am not making a statement about the actual existence of God. It very well may be that the world is self-sufficient without the existence of God. I am merely objecting to the straw-man conception of God, which wishes that God be capable of being manipulated, or empirically observed. This straw-man doesn't seem to be reflective of what God would be, if God does exist. I think there are legitimate criticisms to the existence of God, but first let us settle on what we mean by this "God". That's a good point. What do we mean with the word "God"? Neti neti... Words can never express it because words are symbols in themselves. I think when we use words to communicate, those words have the ability to bring forth an understanding that goes beyond the word itself. Such as saying, "I love you". A feeling is communicated through a symbol. We can attribute symbols to God, but we have to remember they are symbols or they become idols. That seems to be the entire problem with defining God. People usually want the symbols to be a concrete reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I am not making a statement about the actual existence of God. It very well may be that the world is self-sufficient without the existence of God. I am merely objecting to the straw-man conception of God, which wishes that God be capable of being manipulated, or empirically observed. This straw-man doesn't seem to be reflective of what God would be, if God does exist. I think there are legitimate criticisms to the existence of God, but first let us settle on what we mean by this "God". That's a good point. What do we mean with the word "God"? Neti neti... Words can never express it because words are symbols in themselves. I think when we use words to communicate, those words have the ability to bring forth an understanding that goes beyond the word itself. Such as saying, "I love you". A feeling is communicated through a symbol. We can attribute symbols to God, but we have to remember they are symbols or they become idols. That seems to be the entire problem with defining God. People usually want the symbols to be a concrete reality. Um, forgive my concrete thinking, but if God isn't concrete reality, then God is immaterial. In every sense of the word. I.e. doesn't exist. Or, if you prefer, undefined. My own symbol for God is below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I am not making a statement about the actual existence of God. It very well may be that the world is self-sufficient without the existence of God. I am merely objecting to the straw-man conception of God, which wishes that God be capable of being manipulated, or empirically observed. This straw-man doesn't seem to be reflective of what God would be, if God does exist. I think there are legitimate criticisms to the existence of God, but first let us settle on what we mean by this "God". That's a good point. What do we mean with the word "God"? Neti neti... Words can never express it because words are symbols in themselves. I think when we use words to communicate, those words have the ability to bring forth an understanding that goes beyond the word itself. Such as saying, "I love you". A feeling is communicated through a symbol. We can attribute symbols to God, but we have to remember they are symbols or they become idols. That seems to be the entire problem with defining God. People usually want the symbols to be a concrete reality. Um, forgive my concrete thinking, but if God isn't concrete reality, then God is immaterial. In every sense of the word. I.e. doesn't exist. Or, if you prefer, undefined. My own symbol for God is below. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts