BitaTruble
Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006 From: Texas Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Esinn So, as far as I can tell we have defined god as a concept which exists in the mind. The fact science has not proven how the universe was created, despite multiple theories exist, is used as evidence that this thing exists external to the human mind and is responsible for the ex-nihlo creation of everything. This internal concept can be changed with personal imagination and seems to change as often as necessary to satisfy emotional needs of the individual. Often ones belief in this thing is based upon the circumstances of the moment, geographic location of birth or social setting. The individual typically adopts and adapts their personal definition of god from either a single or multiple ancient religions. I have also learned that although it might be acceptable for me to question and challenge core irrational beliefs of a person about: social status, racism, sexism, math or supernatural things it is unacceptable to question modern religious beliefs. This is due to the fact that science has not removed the shroud of mystery from the question most major religions seem to hinge their validity upon. This is the fact that science has not conclusively demonstrated how the universe started. So, like it or not NAY nay nay my personal core belief is beyond reason, logic, evidence and ultimate understanding so I am allowed to have it. After all it makes me feel nice and warm inside. Yes, I have. It is not logically possible to have a conversation about this thing us humans call god because no one knows what the hell it is. If you would have been following the thread you would have realized this. Actually, by your own words you did not achieve your objective which was to understand God so you could have intelligent conversations in other threads. It's not logically possible to have such a conversation. But, I'm glad you think you learned something. Oh, and I read every word of this thread and did not see where you had achieved your objective which is why I asked rather than assumed. Shall I assume that since it's not logically possible to have a conversation about this thing us humans call God, that you won't be entertaining the idea of actually participating in threads where God is the subject of the conversation? I do find it rather amusing that it's not logically possible to have a conversation about God, but here we are with 32 pages of conversations about God. Sort of gives lie to your statement that it is not possible to have such conversations when the evidence is right before us. Maybe what you meant is that it's not possible to use logic to convert people away from their beliefs? But, I don't want to assume although that doesn't seem to be something with which you are overly concerned.
_____________________________
"Oh, so it's just like Rock, paper, scissors." He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."
|