100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Philosphy of Religion Room... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 01/11/08 06:50 AM
|
|
I would like to participate in a community of sorts... As shown in other forums, there can be like-minded people who discuss matters at hand, within the context of the group.
The goal is to include only the philosophy of religion and it's applications... The philosophy of religion does not include scriptural references, and should attempt to stray completely away from applying human emotion to the notion of 'God'... otherwise known as 'anthropomorphism'... Concise language will help to build a good conversation... let's keep the personal attacks out of the realm of discussion. Logic must apply...  Keep an open mind, voice a logical thought with supporting notions... and have a clean and orderly discussion... not a battle of personal slams... a civil 'chat-room' as it were... Wondering if it would be of interest to anyone else? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would love to but I cant chat long right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bring it on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, when and where?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'creativesoul' wrote:
I would like to participate in a community of sorts... As shown in other forums, there can be like-minded people who discuss matters at hand, within the context of the group. Do you mean to emulate the 'members only' 'COFFEEHOUSE CHAT FOR CHRISTIANS', and lauch the 'COFFEEHOUSE CHAT FOR PHILOSOPHERS' ?!?!? Let me see if I understand your intention correctly. Do you intend to keep an exchange on purpose, and on topic throughout the duration of the thread??? Are you looking for a way to avoid those impertinent and redundant 'out-of-hyperspace' hijacks, which throw otherwise intelligent and well founded topics, into 'black holes' of self-serving interest and confusion??? Do you really wish to invite only 'LIKE-MINDED' people??? Or rather, keep people 'on topic', regardless of their 'personnal agendi' ??? There is no debate, nor is there any posibility of enriching one's perspective without 'opposing views'. Do you mean 'like-minded' with respect to the principles of debating, but not necessarily with respect to the side of the topic you defend??? Does any of this correspond to your intent with this thread??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 To all: I suppose all religion involves 'God' right? In one way or another, by one name or another... most commonly called 'God'... Is it safe to say that 'God', in order to exist must be prior to all other existance? Therefore... I would start with... Because the notion of 'God' must be prior to all creation, all creation must consist of 'God' in some way... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 01/11/08 07:34 AM
|
|
Hi Voile...
You would make a marvelous addition... Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes... How were your holidays? EDIT: For clarity to all... Differing views are not problematic, they are essential!!! Proper expression is key... that is the 'like-minded' part... proper expression!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Voile... You would make a marvelous addition... Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes... How were your holidays? EDIT: For clarity to all... Differing views are not problematic, they are essential!!! Proper expression is key... that is the 'like-minded' part... proper expression!!! Hi right back 'creative', and Happy New Year to you!!! Vacationing was great!!! Thanks for asking. As for this thread of yours, I humbly and simply suggest that OP's must assume the role of moderator on their threads. They (OP's) should ask for, and enforce their role as moderator: keeping the thread on track with a clearly defined topic, and debating question, should be the task of the OP. From there, the quality of the OP's premise, debating question, and abilility to moderate the traffic respectfully, will determine the success or failure of a thread. OP's being clear, and assuming respectfully the role of moderator is key. In an unofficial manner, 'redykeulous' and yourself, have been great examples of effective moderators on various threads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voile:
Hi right back 'creative', and Happy New Year to you!!! Vacationing was great!!! Thanks for asking. Good, I am glad to hear that, and a Happy New Year to you also!! As for this thread of yours, I humbly and simply suggest that OP's must assume the role of moderator on their threads. They (OP's) should ask for, and enforce their role as moderator: keeping the thread on track with a clearly defined topic, and debating question, should be the task of the OP. From there, the quality of the OP's premise, debating question, and abilility to moderate the traffic respectfully, will determine the success or failure of a thread. OP's being clear, and assuming respectfully the role of moderator is key. In an unofficial manner, 'redykeulous' and yourself, have been great examples of effective moderators on various threads. I appreciate your compliment... Thank you... It is quite difficult, at times, to maintain some type of order... My tactfulness is sometimes in need of deep breathing exercises... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it safe to say that 'God', in order to exist must be prior to all other existance? I don’t think it’s safe to say anything around here. :laugh; I think that before you can talk about “God” you need to define the term to some degree. For example,… is it possible to have more than one “God”? If so, what constitutes a God and how can it be determined that they are ‘separate individuals’. Does a “God” need to be cognizant? If so, to what level? Can a “God” exist in a purely “non-physical” form? By that I simply mean, without any attributes! If there are attributes then they can be defined by their properties and therefore we have “physics”! If the “God” can exist without attributes, then what does it mean to “exist”? Can a single attribute exist alone? How could a single attribute be determined to exist if it has nothing to be compared with? If God needs at least two attributes to ‘exist’ what would be their minimal requirements? What are the maximal requirements??? Could a human being qualify as a “God”. Does a “God” need to have powers to be a “God” (the ability to do things?) If so, does that ability need to be unlimited? If not, what is the least power a God can have and still be consider to be a “God”. Just thought I’d try to get some feel for what you have in mind with the word “God”. Could you post some kind of working definitions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James...
Your killing me... Just kidding... I am responding in a minute in more detail... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Abra' (Happy New Year to you 'abra'!) wrote:
Is it safe to say that 'God', in order to exist must be prior to all other existance? I don’t think it’s safe to say anything around here. :laugh; I think that before you can talk about “God” you need to define the term to some degree. For example,… is it possible to have more than one “God”? If so, what constitutes a God and how can it be determined that they are ‘separate individuals’. Does a “God” need to be cognizant? If so, to what level? Can a “God” exist in a purely “non-physical” form? By that I simply mean, without any attributes! If there are attributes then they can be defined by their properties and therefore we have “physics”! If the “God” can exist without attributes, then what does it mean to “exist”? Can a single attribute exist alone? How could a single attribute be determined to exist if it has nothing to be compared with? If God needs at least two attributes to ‘exist’ what would be their minimal requirements? What are the maximal requirements??? Could a human being qualify as a “God”. Does a “God” need to have powers to be a “God” (the ability to do things?) If so, does that ability need to be unlimited? If not, what is the least power a God can have and still be consider to be a “God”. Just thought I’d try to get some feel for what you have in mind with the word “God”. Could you post some kind of working definitions? 'creative', Abra is skillfully addressing the 'premise' part of the OP's role. With repect to that notion of premise, there are almost as many potential discussions or debates to be had here, as ther are questions raised by 'abra'. In the end, they are all connected under the same umbrella, but it would be a near impossible feat to open, and manage a debate on such a wide-open field. For example, wouldn't it be feasible to address the first 2 questions raised by 'abra' for openers: "... is it possible to have more than one “God”? ... ... If so, what constitutes a God and how can it be determined that they are ‘separate individuals’..." Then move on to 'Part II', ... "... Does a “God” need to be cognizant? If so, to what level?..." and 'Part III', ... "... Can a “God” exist in a purely “non-physical” form? By that I simply mean, without any attributes! If there are attributes then they can be defined by their properties and therefore we have “physics”!..." And so on, such that in the end, we will have truly revisited our respective and long accepted notions of 'god', and in so doing, will have expanded our abiblity to include and understand each other much more. What do you think CS and Abra?!?!? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok... we need to go one point at a time here...
First order of business... in terms of one creator... Can we prove the existence of 'God'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am guessing that we agree that 'God' cannot be proven to exist...
As a result of existance not being able to be 'proven'... We must use what we 'know' to consider any notion... Do we agree here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James asked:
For example,… is it possible to have more than one “God”? If so, what constitutes a God and how can it be determined that they are ‘separate individuals’. Based on empirical knowledge, oh boy...I get the feeling that I am setting myself up here... I would say that it is not possible for more than one original 'God' or source... 'God' must be a priori to all creation and this creation must consist only of attributes of 'God'... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Fri 01/11/08 09:52 AM
|
|
Can we prove the existence of 'God'? Well, again it comes down to your definition of “God”. I can prove the existence of my God, because I define my God by all that exists. I see the universe in its entirety as an entity. To me, we as humans, are simply a part of this entity. So for me, God is very real and yes, I can “prove” the existence of my God at least to the extent that I can prove my own existence. I can’t imagine a human being expecting any more proof than that. So my God is real, and I can prove her existence. Just look around. Everything you see is God. That’s the basis of my religious philosophy. Now, if your definition of God requires it be an egotistical entity with a conscious awareness of self and a cognizant plan in mind to monitor whether people are being naughty or nice, then perhaps you can reject my use of the word “God”. By this definition I might have to claim atheism and back out of the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am guessing that we agree that 'God' cannot be proven to exist... As a result of existance not being able to be 'proven'... We must use what we 'know' to consider any notion... Do we agree here? Looks like we are already in disagreement. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok... James...
Although I am not at all disagreeing with your definition of 'God' it is not hardly substantial 'proof' is it? Is everything in existance an attribute or an affection of 'God'? How would you begin a thesis or theory of explanation of existance? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ArtGurl
on
Fri 01/11/08 10:10 AM
|
|
Abra wrote:
I can prove the existence of my God, because I define my God by all that exists. I see the universe in its entirety as an entity. To me, we as humans, are simply a part of this entity. So for me, God is very real and yes, I can “prove” the existence of my God at least to the extent that I can prove my own existence. I can’t imagine a human being expecting any more proof than that. So my God is real, and I can prove her existence. Just look around. Everything you see is God. That’s the basis of my religious philosophy. All that exists ... yes I would agree with that ... nothing separate .. I am not sure I would describe it as 'entity' though ... as much as I would consciousness. 'her' huh? If I believed that 'God' had ego and gender ... 'she' would be pleased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James said:
So for me, God is very real and yes, I can “prove” the existence of my God at least to the extent that I can prove my own existence. I can’t imagine a human being expecting any more proof than that. That does not work James... So because I say that I exist then X exists also? X could be anything... Santa? |
|
|
|
|
