It looks to me like this should be continued in one of the "Relgion" forums. In my opinion, when the arguments start quoting religious texts as premises, it has moved out of the "Philosophical" arena and into the "Religious" arena.

The reason I ask people to THINK about those 'so called' trivial things like .. does he go to the bathroom, or what does he do with his 'male' organs... is because they insist on calling God 'HE' and insist that 'he' made man in his image therefor he must look humanoid.

Now an 'image' is not a characteristic (like sensitivity or love) it is how a person looks. And why do you think my request is "irrational or 'sick?" I am merely asking people who talk about God to give me a description of what their concept of God is. What on earth is sick or irrational about that?

Whether you feel that God is the entire universe, or energy, or love or a non-human supreme being of the male gender, it is not sick to inquire further about the nature of what ever concept you have of God. For people who speak of 'him' as if they know that 'he' is a humanoid male being of some sort, I want them to inquire further about the nature of that being. If he is a male, then what makes him a male? If he is humanoid, then does he eat food? Does he change forms? Is he a shape shifter? What form does he usually keep?

I see nothing irrational about these questions if you are accepting the premise that God is a male humanoid looking being. Or maybe you don't really believe that. I think most people don't really believe any of that. If they did, they would give it a little more thought.

If God is a male humanoid supreme being, then he can certainly be classified 'alien' from the perspective of a human. If he keeps that form at all times, then I would doubt that he is God. If he does not keep that form then I would doubt that he is a male humanoid.

You can hook up a human being and run a light bulb from the energy that human produces. So if god made us in his image he must be energy to.

Salutations sir!

I did post some philosophical and even science stuff, but for some reason they just got ignored in here.

I don't want nor did I intend this to be a discussion about religion! I don't want this moved into the religion forum.

People in the philosophy forum often use the term "GOD" and I am just requesting that they first define what they are talking about in a logical manner. I did not intend to get into a religious discussion.

Philosophy is not science and it is not religion. It often uses both spiritual and scientific arguments and forms of thinking. I am addressing the spiritual side of philosophy and asking that people define what their concept of 'spiritual' or 'God is in a non-emotional and non-dogmatic manner.

If this discussion is moved to the religion forum, then you may as well scrap all reason and logic on this subject.

Sorry Jeannie if I might have been the spark to derail the thread.

I was originally responding to you comment in the OP"



My only point is that when we look at the mythologies that make these claims there are far more reasons to dismiss them then there are to support them.

So it's my sincere belief that they can actually be disproved. I feel that they can be disproved via their own self-contained inconsistencies and contradictions alone. But then if we also add what we have actually observed about the real universe it's clearly that the men who wrote those ancient texts were indeed making up thing that could not possibly be true.

When when people suggest that it's impossible to disprove 'God' or 'spirit' in a general abstract sense I agree. But when it comes to showing why specific doctrines are necessarily false I think that's a totally different matter.

Mankind cannot possibly be held responsible for having brought imperfections and death into the world when clearly those imperfections and death existed long before mankind ever evolved.

So any mythologies that tries to pin the blame for these things onto man is clearly a farce. The authors who wrote these guilt-ridden religious doctrines have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar of lies. The real 'sinners' in those religions were the men who wrote these lies in the first place.

These claims do not have to be disproved because they have never been proven to begin with. (If they had, it would not be "faith" it would be called "history.")

You spend too much time and energy trying to disprove claims that do not need to be disproved.

I would not waste my time trying to disprove someone else's concept of God, but if they are claiming their concept of God to be fact, then I would open the floor for a practical and logical questioning of those "facts."

Yours is a crusade against religion. You should know that you can't save the world from religion. Just save yourself from it. Let other people work things out themselves. You sometimes come off as angry and you claim you are not. Perhaps you just don't realize how angry you are at being duped by these 'lies' for so long.

Who is Abra anyway ?. Is he another God somewhere ?. So if Abra states something we just take it as face value. This is a new form of philosophy . .
We do not have any evidence that everything exists and just changes form . A person is born with all his very complex organs is not just a simple manifestation .


Humans have always been humans . They did not change to horses or giraffes .

Of course I am talking about humans as no God , no satan, no angel, no ghost spoke to me and I saw no one of them .


God is the creator according to any dictionary you read .


As an emotion love keeps on changing from one form to another .
I love my gf but she cheats on me I will no longer love her .

But if this is what you chose to believe that is your choice.

Well the word " love ' is well known to any person and should not be an issue for discussion . Love created no one and it is just an inner human emotion that keeps on changing .In the other hand the word " God " is well known to people and there is nothing complex about its definition unless we want to alter the dictionaries and the language itself .
.

I don't think the issue is really over the the definition of the word "god". As has been said, virtually every dictionary in the english language defines it that same way. As I see it, the issue is over the nature of god.

"The creator and ruler of the universe" is a generaized dictionary definition. But what does that say? Or rather, what doesn't that say? It doesn't delineate god's purposes - if any. Other than "ruling the universe", it dosn't say anything about god's interaction with anything in the universe after it's creation. It doesn't describe any of gods qualities or attributes. It's says god is a "ruler" - but it doesn't say what any of his rules are. It doesn't even say that god cares about anyone or anything in the universe, or even has any emotions at all. (Tangent: There are some interesting conotations in that idea.)

All of those things are, by definition, religious doctrine.

"The nature of god" has always been a key issue in Philosophy. So when discussing "god" vis-a-vis anything I think it is perfectly reasonable to request a functional definition - that is, how does god function - which is what I think Jeannie has been driving at.

Thank you Sky.

tohyup,

A dictionary is not the final authority on what God is, it only tries to state what people's common understanding usage of a word is, so I can't submit to the authority of a dictionary for the truth about God.




He spoke about the scientific nature of energy in a previous post I was just agreeing with him here.



Yes we do have evidence of that.

A spirit or person manifests a body inside of the womb according to the genetic material and DNA available. The information for manifesting forms is in all material. It is like instructions or programs. I assert that the actual manifestation is guided by an intelligent force called 'spriit.'

That is manifestation.

You have a very basic view of life. I see you are not a very deep thinker on these subjects. Live long and prosper.

So anyone who questions your logic is not a deep thinker and has a basic view of life....... !!.
The thread : Is God energy ?.
Obviously everyone can see that God is not love and love is not God .

Yes. Well not really. It is not that you 'question my logic' that caused me to conclude that you are not a deep thinker. It is because you appear to be shallow in your view of what love is that causes me to conclude that you are not a deep thinker.



Really? Then why does the Bible say "God Is Love?"

Your 'basic' view of love is only from the human point of view. Love is a lot more than that.

With human love, there are many different kinds of love. Human love is sometimes just a feeling that 'You make me feel good so I love you."

But if a person makes you feel bad, then (you said) you "no longer love them."

They maybe made you feel bad because they also decided to "love" someone else... and you were jealous and fearful and angry and it made you feel bad and unloved. So you said you no longer 'love' them or stopped loving them. That is insecurity and jealousy and pain of possibly being lied to. But maybe the only reason a person lies about 'cheating' is because they don't want to hurt the other person.

But when you get hurt you stop loving them. So what you thought was love was not love at all. It was just that you liked to feel good and you found someone who made you feel good so you thought that was love.

If you really love someone, you don't stop loving them when suddenly they don't please you and make you feel good anymore. Human (romantic) love is basically a mutual admiration society. It is not a real feeling of true unconditional love.

Your view of what love is, is shallow, hence "not deep."

True unconditional love is more felt when you love your children. You don't stop loving them if they make you feel bad or lie to you.

Love is the thing that binds everything in the universe together. If that's not God then I don't know what else is.

Occassionally I am a deep thinker, but many times I don't have deep conclusions and for that matter answers to either.

Love is known to everyone and you are turning in a squared circle !.


Since when did you start believing in the bible ?!!!.
You believe in the bible now..... .

And where did you get this conclusion since you do NOT believe in all religions and that is from your posts .


Blah blah blah and blah from you :
We are humans and we talk about love as known by humans.
Bringing other definitions to a word is contrary to any linguistic understanding . How about a horse is a class, a car, a robot.....etc. You can not change the definition of the word love just to suit your imagination .

The thing about being 'shallow' is that you don't know the deep so you don't know that you are shallow.

You have confirmed my impression that you are not a deep thinker on these matters. No, actually, you proved it.

I don't believe or disbelieve in the Bible. I read and evaluate all information. The Bible is many books written by many people. I don't believe it entirely, I simply read and interpret it. There are some good points in the Bible and a lot of hidden meanings in the words.

"God is Love." is one of the sentences that I understand and believe.

And yes, I pick and chose what I will believe, sentence by sentence. I'm NOT an all or nothing kind of person when it comes to information.

A common propaganda tactic is to mix truth with lies in order to lead people to the believing of lies. The reason is that a lot of people are 'all or nothing' kind of people. They think that if it is true, it is all true, and if it is a lie then it is all a lie.

That is not smart.

@Jeannienean :
You do not believe in the bible but you use the bible to justify your imagination of non sense. Congratulations for your deep thoughts........ !!. I always thought a debate is about opinions but you keep attacking me from post one on your threads....is that another bible tactic that I am not aware of ?!.
.

I don't use the Bible to 'justify' anything. If the statement "God is Love" was written on a bathroom wall I would say... that sounds true to me.

It does not matter where a person finds some enlightenment. I am sorry you feel that I am attacking you.

What does Love mean to you? Have you ever really loved someone? If you love someone one day and they do something to make you feel unhappy and then you 'hate' them, then maybe you did not ever love them to begin with. You only loved the way they made you feel, or you loved what you thought they were, and you did not know them well enough.

It is sometimes hard to live up to the expectations of others.

If you don't want to think deeply about these things, that is okay with me. Your idea of love just does not seem like love to me, but if that is what you understand then I hope you find a more lasting kind of love.

Peace.