verklingen

This is directly due to sensationalist stories! How can someone so obviously intelligent not see that? Why do you give so much credence to these stories? You know yourself that you understand what I (and JcP) am talking about, why do you continue to argue this with a semantical bent?

There doesn't need to be a new word, because the word already exists. If the word "God" (and "Love" for that matter) carries so much baggage, it is incumbent upon the one who seeks understanding to shed those elements the term conjures in his mind which drag the term away from its original meaning.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

snapshot

Basically this is a war of words. If you aren't doing your best to be as descriptive as possible, your only motives would either be laziness or deception. Especially with a topic as important as this.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

Verk, I just wanted to say your sig is great. Back to the topic at hand


edit: question for anyone who has an answer: do you think you can exist without words? And if so, how can one choose the word God to mean more than the concept of love/compassion?

snapshot

Because the best way that ideas can be expressed is through words. It is all semantic. How else are you going to get me to believe in God without words? A girl doesn't need words to get me to believe in Love, though that may just be chemical reactions.


When a word has so many meanings that use of it becomes confusing then one must try that much harder to convey the original meaning. Simply saying Love is God and God is love and All is God and Love is All is simply not good enough anymore. It can be interpreted in too many different ways.

I'm concerned not for myself, but for the people who'll fall for words and make up their own ideas about them. Logic is not like that. When you use those words you're indirectly teaching people to think illogically. Won't somebody think of the children?

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

verklingen

^ Can you tell me how saying "God is all, God is Love, Love is all" could be interpreted in any way outside of the way I intend?

PS: Thanks JcP, I nearly dropped off my chair when I read this verse!

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JcP

gotta agree with snapshot here, Verk. (well sort of, not really).

It can be interpreted a lot of ways. And, in my opinion, that's why it's the best way to say it.

This is not about making everyone the same and having everyone believe in the same things. This is not about some magic key phrase that everyone has to prescribe to. Everyone won't by definition. There is always an equal darkness to light. The trunk and the roots, yin and yang, etc etc etc. What we as a collective CAN do however, is enjoy a reprive in the light because we were in a dip in the dark. Before I (and you) found we had a choice in what we choose for ourselves. That it's not mommy and daddy who choose, but ourselves. I think the paradigm shift being witnessed right now is the start. This is about giving each person the choice that was not given to them in this life. We are born into a society with preset rules by people who control us even after their deaths.

By asking these questions, imo, you free yourself from the binds of controlling bodies and realize control only exists because we as a collective have chosen it uncosciously by supporting it both fiscally and emotionally.

"Love is" is an open ended statement on purpose. Some will go "Love is sex." some will go "Love is money." Some will go "Love is boring."

But, again, in my opinion, those who truly ask the question will not need modifiers. To them, "LOVE IS."

Each person must be given the choice. Snapshot has made his, I've made mine, and you've made yours. There is no right or wrong, or better or worse.

There is only choice. But love, for me, is the only choice. Because It's the reason I'm alive.

Think of life like a rubix cube. Some might want their cube to be all jumbled and confusing on purpose (more interesting that way). Others might want to solve it, others might want to look up the answers and then solve it and claim they solved it (cough), whatever.

Pretty trippy, but I think that made sense.

snapshot

God, for one, is interpreted as a creator. It's also interpreted as the moral guide for the Universe. It's also interpreted as something that will give you eternal damnation or eternal everlasting happiness.

Love is interpreted as a force which humans have no control over. It's interpreted as an extreme appreciation.

If I say God is Love I'm in a way saying that the creator is love. But there's no reason to think that Love was the creator. If I say that God is Love, there's no reason for me to think that Love is everything.


My main gripe is that they are ambiguous terms to begin with. There is no concrete meanning for them. In that way they can be interpreted as many different things at once, teaching people that non-thinking is OK if they accept God is love and love is all as true.

If you're gonna use the phrase, God is love. First describe what you mean by God. Then describe what you mean by love. Then, by using logic, describe how God is the same thing as Love. Then, only those meanings that you attributed to those words can be used from now on. If you have a different meaning for God, you must state explicitly that you're changing your meaning.


We haven't even gotten to "Prove God exists" yet because that is a semantic argument in itself. You can prove God exists because by your (accusatory, don't take it as such) definition, God can not be proved to be existing. It's in the definition of the word. God is outside of understanding is one meaning that I've often heard, but that is clearly a semantic boundary and not a realistic boundary. In reality, there is nothing that states whether you can or can't prove that God exists.

Love is different in that we have specific chemical responses that we can measure in the brain when two people are in love. That in itself separates the semantic "God" and the chemical "love".

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

verklingen

All points taken, from each of you respectively.

snapshot, I see where you're coming from, but I always preface any discussion about God or Love with an explanation of what I find these terms to represent and the relation I perceive between them. This perception is by my own choice, and others can choose other perceptions by their own choice. They can listen to what I have to say armed with cognizance of my reasoning, and make their own choices from there.

No one is under any pressure to accept what I say, other than accepting the fact that I myself accept it. And that's what matters to me.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JcP

look! expression of thought without words!

snapshot

If you preface those terms outside of logic and then use logic in order to describe how those terms correlate is where I have the problem. If you don't use logic to arrive at the conclusion that those terms have real-world meaning, then how can you use logic to deduce (or induce, i forget) that those terms someone how coincide?

I don't think either of those terms should be used to describe anything besides a utopian reality. Trying to apply them to the real-world without logically establishing they exist in the real world to me is hypocracy. But I think its an hypocracy that is so accepted that people don't think twice about it.


To your last point, I completely disagree. If you state a logic argument I should be powerless to accept it. That is the point of using logic.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

God is the creator.
I create.
Therefore, I am God because I create.

Argue that logic please.

snapshot

Logical fallacy. Fallacy of ambiguity. What is meant by God?

EDIT: I think it's actually called a categorical statement fallacy. You can't prove to me that something exists just because you say it does. You must show me that is does. You do this through the use of arguments. A logical argument will only be as good as the statements used in it, and the statements will only be as good as the terms used to comprise it. Therefore, those terms must have real world meaning.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

snapshot

Arrive at a logical conclusion that God exists. Then use God freely in any logical argument after that.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

that God is the creator. There is no ambiguity with a modifier.

God is the creator.
I create.
Therefore, I am God.

Or for a less "ambiguous" logic chain.

A = B
C = B
therefore...
C=A.

verklingen

How is describing how I view a term illogical? You consider belief in God be be illogical, so from what I read into your words you are reflecting that perception upon other people's ideas and concepts concerning the term "God."

It's simply my understanding of the term, which I present to others if they agree to engage in discussion. You're not making any sense to me.

EDIT: It would be much simpler for you to say "God-belief is illogical" than arguing how you see the usage of the term "God" to be illogical.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

snapshot

You must then define by what you mean by creator. Creator of what? How do you prove that god is the creator after you define creator?

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

oh, so now I need to define the modifier for you? Lordie.

God creates life.
I create life.
Therefore I am God.

See? even logic goes on forever. What KIND of life? How MUCH life?

In logic, you seem to need numbers. So for unset terms we use X, Y, and Z.

This is a logic chain. If you do not understand this, please take a look at math again. I hated math, but I remember this stuff.

X = Y
Y = Z
(squigly therefore lines)
Z=Y=X

in words:

God is equal to creation.
Creation is equal to myself.

Therefore I am equal to creation and equal to God.
Therefore I am creation.
Therefore I am God.
Therefore God is creation.
Therefore Creation is God.
Therefore Creation is myself.
Therefore God is myself.
Therfore God IS.
Therefore creation IS.
Therefore I AM.

snapshot

I think that if you can't produce a logical argument that God, however you define it, exists, then God must remain illogical until an argument suggests otherwise.

I think that God-belief is irrational as well as illogical, but logic is simply the rationale of words. It's being able to make sense with words. This isn't about God-belief though. It's about being able to justify the use of the language to assist in one's ideas that God exists. Even though that's not what this thread started off as.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

snapshot

I've got a book on logic but I'm pretty sure you're stating fallacy. I have to look through it though. It will take awhile since I'm not a human dictionary and I need to go to MC to sign up for courses.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

verklingen

Every existing thing must have a cause. No effect can exist without a respective cause. We exist as the effect of a union between two attractive opposites. The cause of this attraction is what I call "Love." Because all existance can be said to be the effect of attraction, the cause of this attraction must have been the first existing thing. Because the cause of this attraction has already been established as "Love," it can also be equated with the concept of "God" as creator.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”