Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fanman wrote:Vijaydevani:

What would you call, fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?

A futile attempt at "I told you!" What difference does the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy make to real lives? The prophecy came true. So what changed after the fact? Nothing.

-- Updated September 9th, 2015, 1:44 am to add the following --

What was the point of the prophecy in the first place?

Vijaydevani:

I ask you again:

Can anybody who believes in God answer you're questions, without you disagreeing with them, if their answers were to promote theism, or be theistic in nature?

Fanman wrote:Vijaydevani:

I ask you again:

Can anybody who believes in God answer you're questions, without you disagreeing with them, if their answers were to promote theism, or be theistic in nature?

You question makes no sense. I have no control over any answer anyone might give, so anybody, including people who belive in God can answer my question. They can even give answers which promote theism or are theistic in nature. But how can you expect me to agree with the answers without knowing what they are? It is a strange request. I would have to read the answer to know if I agree with it or not. If I agree with it, I will point out that I agree with it. If I disagree with it, I will give reasons why I disagree. That is the best I can do with regards to your very strange question.

Greta wrote:

Atreyu wrote:If there is a "God", what makes you think that She could "prove" herself? The assumption in the OP is simply false, as if a God could possibly reveal itself to very lessor entities such as ourselves.

The truth is that God could no more reveal Herself to us that we could reveal ourselves to microbes swimming around in a drop of water. Stick a needle into the water, inject various chemicals, put electric probes into the water to create vibrations - do whatever you like and none of the microbes in the drop of water will ever have the faintest inkling of your existence.

And the same would apply to any "God" trying to "prove" itself to us, but to an even greater degree....

"it" is the term. God is not a crone or large breasted Valkyrie either.

I quite like the conception that Misty outlined, the idea of "God" being love and wisdom - the ideal qualities.

But Greta that cannot be true. If anything God is love and wisdom made manifest and therefore needs us for him to be, and I say him as masculine so that we can be recipient in the effeminate to enable intercourse that way and therefore God is on top and we are down below as human, or earthly, or woman even, much like a cookie jar for him to put his cookies in and we find riches in the God we know.

While the above is all true, it still does not make us know God as flatlander down below where we exist in the singular as earthly, while God above is heavenly and we are merely recipient of his golden rays and will expose our self in effort to get more of him much like we do when we are on the beach on a sunny day.

So now to prove God all we need to do is be radiant with the love and wisdom that we have received as a natural replicate of that in which we are the manifestation of God first person now in him. And don't you think as smile has cause to be?

Vijaydevani:

Are you an atheist?

Fanman wrote:Vijaydevani:

Are you an atheist?

yes.

-- Updated September 9th, 2015, 12:09 pm to add the following --

I don't really see what that has to do with the question I asked: what difference does God really make?

Vijaydevani [clarified atheist]:

Do you believe there's an argument which demonstrates God's existence or comes close to doing so?

Lambert wrote:

But Greta that cannot be true. If anything God is love and wisdom made manifest and therefore needs us for him to be, and I say him as masculine so that we can be recipient in the effeminate to enable intercourse that way and therefore God is on top and we are down below as human, or earthly, or woman even, much like a cookie jar for him to put his cookies in and we find riches in the God we know.

(and the rest of the post)

This was a metaphor from Lambert which made sense .

I object that some nasty demon might have pretended to be God and impregnated me with his nasty ideas.

I suppose it might feel nice to be the inactive partner of a benevolent and powerful God but I hope that reason and ordinary human sympathy will continue to be our inspiration and not surrender to any old deity or demon who claims to be God.

Fanman wrote:Vijaydevani [clarified atheist]:

Do you believe there's an argument which demonstrates God's existence or comes close to doing so?

nope.

-- Updated September 9th, 2015, 11:40 pm to add the following --

And I did not ask about God's existence. I asked what difference does God make? I am assuming you have no answer to that question of mine and so you are asking so many to evade mine. I have answered each one of yours. I think the honorable thing to do would be to answer mine. What difference does God make which is not psychological?

Vijaydevani wrote:

Fanman wrote:Vijaydevani [clarified atheist]:

Do you believe there's an argument which demonstrates God's existence or comes close to doing so?

nope.

-- Updated September 9th, 2015, 11:40 pm to add the following --

And I did not ask about God's existence. I asked what difference does God make? I am assuming you have no answer to that question of mine and so you are asking so many to evade mine. I have answered each one of yours. I think the honorable thing to do would be to answer mine. What difference does God make which is not psychological?

The difference which God makes which is the core of all religious myths is that life is orderly, has meaning. The alternative can be scary until it's faced up to : each of us makes his or her own meanings. If this is what Fanman means by his one-time claim that he is God then Fanman was right.

Vijaydevani:

Why are asking people questions relating to a being which you don't believe exists? Why do you want information about a non-existent being? Something with no efficacy, such as a being which doesn't exist, cannot have a psychological effect. Unless you're saying that belief alone in God has positive outcomes. Which would mean its a system that works.

---

Belinda:

I didn't claim to be God what are you talking about? The topic of my thread was anecdotal. I've already clarified this numerous times. Just not at the races are you.

Fanman wrote:Vijaydevani:

Why are asking people questions relating to a being which you don't believe exists? Why do you want information about a non-existent being? Something with no efficacy, such as a being which doesn't exist, cannot have a psychological effect. Unless you're saying that belief alone in God has positive outcomes. Which would mean its a system that works.

You really are one strange man. I asked a question which I have a right to ask. If you don't like my asking the question, you can ignore it. I don't see the point of this long question answer session you had with me. If you don't have answer to my question or do not wish to answer the question, you can always opt for silence on the matter.

My question stands. If you have an answer, give it. But I need to give no justification for asking a question. I have every right to do so. Just as you have every right not to answer. And I propose to do exactly that with you. So either give an answer, otherwise do not expect me to participate in this pointless discussion with you.

-- Updated September 11th, 2015, 4:08 am to add the following --

Also, my question is not about the existence of God. He may exist or he may not exist. That is a debate that can keep going on. My question is, what is the relevance of God assuming he exists? What difference does God make to the lives of people today which other than psychological?

Sorry, Fanman, I ought not to have raked that over and could have made my point without mentioning that.

***************

Lambert wrote:

(Greta wrote)I quite like the conception that Misty outlined, the idea of "God" being love and wisdom - the ideal qualities.


(Lambert responded)But Greta that cannot be true. If anything God is love and wisdom made manifest and therefore needs us for him to be,

Perhaps God does need us for him to be, simply because God cannot be unless our transient and frail incidents of human love and wisdom also be. This would be pantheist . Pantheism recognises the whole and also the parts as aspects of the same.

Psychologically I doubt if anyone can understand or do love and wisdom unless love and wisdom have human faces preferably human faces that one might identify. Meantime, back on Earth, Greta approves Misty's suggestion love and wisdom as attributes of God. So do I.

Belinda wrote:Sorry, Fanman, I ought not to have raked that over and could have made my point without mentioning that.

***************

Lambert wrote:

(Greta wrote)I quite like the conception that Misty outlined, the idea of "God" being love and wisdom - the ideal qualities.


(Lambert responded)But Greta that cannot be true. If anything God is love and wisdom made manifest and therefore needs us for him to be,

Perhaps God does need us for him to be, simply because God cannot be unless our transient and frail incidents of human love and wisdom also be. This would be pantheist . Pantheism recognises the whole and also the parts as aspects of the same.

Psychologically I doubt if anyone can understand or do love and wisdom unless love and wisdom have human faces preferably human faces that one might identify. Meantime, back on Earth, Greta approves Misty's suggestion love and wisdom as attributes of God. So do I.

Sure with the only difference seeing and being is not the same. It Is nice to see God in nature and I have great respect for pantheist which is something I cannot say for a Christian as Christian. I went through this before where syn-ousia is one step short of par-ousia in that the mind is willing but the flesh is week as it would not be in sy-zen where seeing and being is the same.

Another way to put this is that when Jesus rose to heaven where seeing and being is the same hell came crashing down, as obviously it must being the flip side of it's own opposite. So now the proof of God is to be one on your own and that is what halo's are all about, that for Plato was not yet another insight but instead the shine that makes an insight radiant came to rest on him as in parousia that leads to syzen.

And I know that I am obnoxious here and I do not mean to be. For me it is just contemplative logic where induction is allowed and I just try to make hay with that. That is what farmers do best and I like doing that, just so you know.

Vijaydevani:

Also, my question is not about the existence of God. He may exist or he may not exist. That is a debate that can keep going on. My question is, what is the relevance of God assuming he exists? What difference does God make to the lives of people today which other than psychological?

The fact that you don't believe God exists, and there are no arguments for God's existence which for you have veracity. Demonstrates that you're asking about the relevance of a being which you don't believe exists. This is a massive oxymoron. How can something which doesn't exist have relevance? How can something which doesn't exist have a psychological effect? What you're asking people to do, from your stand point and perspective (as an atheist), is to tell you their delusions, after which point you, due to your position, will call them delusional, you can't do anything else. Why do you want people tell you their "delusions?"

Is that what you call philosophy.