This is different from Nietzsche's "God is dead." How would we go about understanding the nature of a supreme being. I've heard a lot of definitions of God and most of them tend to conflict with a sentient/alive being.

When I hear is "God is love" it rules out the idea of a being in the sky watching over us or creating us for whatever reason.

So if a supreme being does exist, would it be alive?

EDIT: Characteristics of living things.

Living things are made of cells.

Living things obtain and use energy.

Living things grow and develop.

Living things reproduce.

Living things respond to their environment.

Living things adapt to their environment.

[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 10-18-2005).]

There is a line from Thackeray that I've always liked (a slightly modified version was borrowed in the film "The Crow"):

"Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children."

Something I've been thinking about a lot recently is how much we forget when we grow up and stop being kids. There is a huge wisdom in the minds of children, in the innocence and laughter there is something we lose later in life, a kind of second fall of man.

Probably one of the reasons I love magic mushrooms so much.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

"Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children."

*cough* (http://tinyurl.com/a5r53)

All your characteristics for life involve the physical realm of earth. What makes you think God would be a physical being?

The same concept applies for spiritual warfare and the human soul. To deny these exist, and that a life force that is everlasting exists in these, is to deny the possibility of God.

I think the characteristic of life is the DNA molecule: this allows it to self-replicate and evolve. I don't know about god itself, but religion is certainly alive http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif).

Interesting. I had heard a similar sort of thing used to explain comfort blankets. The idea was that at the age where a mother nurses an infant, their minds haven't developed the distinctions between "self" and "other", so when they are breastfeeding they literally think they are sucking on something that is a part of themselves. Then when breastfeeding ends, the trauma of separation is so powerful that they redirect those same feelings onto some other object, namely a comfort blanket. So the same sort of thing, in much more materialistic terms. I've also thought for a long time that a persons relationship with their parents tends to have a lot in common with their attitude towards god.

Personally I believe there is a huge degree of misconceptions surrounding the concept of God, and the confusion arises purely and simply because of how common it is to try and define him/her/it/whatever in terms of one's self, coloring it with desires and fears that originate in a person's own ego, considering god a reflection of man etc. In that sense I'm sure there are plenty of people who have erroneous and egoistic notions of God arising from the kind of causes mentioned in that embryonic theory, and all sorts of other such things, the way people get more religious the closer they get to death is a perfect example.

In my eyes, I think most atheists are really searching for a 100% convincing argument for god, and because so many regular notions of god are tainted by some of the fallacies I mentioned just now, they get rid of all of those notions entirely. What they can't get rid of however is the desire to seek out knowledge of god (god in a non dogmatic sense). Many religious people might have gone about it wrong and filled their heads with very much man made ideas, but what's spiritual in even the most egoistic of them is the search to find god. It's something fundamentally human, that search. If the universe is god, in a pantheistic sense, then what does that make scientists?

I think the best way to try and find an understanding of God is like Alice trying to get to the Red Queen's castle. That harder people try, by filling their heads with the words and concepts of other people, the less personal understanding they will find. It's giving up and emptying your mind like some kind of Zen monk practising meditation, forgetting pretense and prejudice, that the truth simply comes to you. That's why children get it without getting it.

Now. Sleep.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

...So if a supreme being does exist, would it be alive?

EDIT: Characteristics of living things.

Living things are made of cells.

Living things obtain and use energy.

Living things grow and develop.

Living things reproduce.

Living things respond to their environment.

Living things adapt to their environment.



These are characteristics of living things on this particular planet. All life on earth is based on DNA. This fact can result in the misleading belief that this is the only possible form of life. There may be life forms in the universe which are far from being organic. We know shit about the universe. So assuming that a living god is necessarily DNA-based is... how shall I put this? Limited?!

Besides, why should the creator of time and space be a part of his own creation?

That's why I'm an weak agnostic. I just don't think that I have the required information to judge on this matter.

Of course it's from Earth, it'd be a bit superfluous to include things from other planets if we don't know what they are.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Of course it's from Earth, it'd be a bit superfluous to include things from other planets if we don't know what they are.

I thought you were suggesting that god should meet those requirements to be 'properly' alive. I just want to stress the fact that THE god should be everything imaginable and beyond because he/it shouldn't be limited in any way. A god who is limited in any way,... ? That would be a strange concept.

[This message has been edited by Darwinist (edited 10-19-2005).]

quote:All your characteristics for life involve the physical realm of earth. What makes you think God would be a physical being?

The same concept applies for spiritual warfare and the human soul. To deny these exist, and that a life force that is everlasting exists in these, is to deny the possibility of God.

You assume that there is something other than the physical...

unfortunatly for you, 'till you back up your claims you are considered to be wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

This is different from Nietzsche's "God is dead." How would we go about understanding the nature of a supreme being. I've heard a lot of definitions of God and most of them tend to conflict with a sentient/alive being.

When I hear is "God is love" it rules out the idea of a being in the sky watching over us or creating us for whatever reason.

So if a supreme being does exist, would it be alive?

EDIT: Characteristics of living things.

Living things are made of cells.

Living things obtain and use energy.

Living things grow and develop.

Living things reproduce.

Living things respond to their environment.

Living things adapt to their environment.



I believe in god as a living thing. I believe god lives through humans which is why he created us. Before us, he just existed, through us he lives. And by those definitions, the universe is god, therefore made of cells and therefore moving, obtaining and using energy, growing and developing, reproducing, - I don't know about responding to the environment, since he is the environment. But, I believe certain things cause "god" to change certain things which could be considered adapting.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Darwinist:

Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

...So if a supreme being does exist, would it be alive?

EDIT: Characteristics of living things.

Living things are made of cells.

Living things obtain and use energy.

Living things grow and develop.

Living things reproduce.

Living things respond to their environment.

Living things adapt to their environment.



These are characteristics of living things on this particular planet. All life on earth is based on DNA. This fact can result in the misleading belief that this is the only possible form of life. There may be life forms in the universe which are far from being organic. We know shit about the universe. So assuming that a living god is necessarily DNA-based is... how shall I put this? Limited?!

Besides, why should the creator of time and space be a part of his own creation?

That's why I'm an weak agnostic. I just don't think that I have the required information to judge on this matter.



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) How do you define life then? All life I can think of is made special by the fact that it is a system where the DNA molecule allows it to self-replicate and to adapt by natural selection. Now obviously I'm not saying the DNA molecule that developed on Earth is going to be the mechanism by which life on other planets does the same, and that's the crux of my argument: since it's not DNA itself but the properties allowed by DNA, ie that a system is self-replicating and adaptive, well, that certainly seems to be what religion does - it seems to change according to it's social environment and to self-replicate like any idea does. It's DNA molecule is the human mind, and it's imperatives for evolutionary change are the contrary-to-religion ideas that the human mind can create.

EDIT: Oh god, whether it's tongue-in-cheek or not, I'm very worried that somebody is calling themselves 'Darwinist' as if it's a belief. Score one for the raving fundamentalist nutcases.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 10-19-2005).]

be warned:God is eternally triumphant and neither lives nor dies

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) How do you define life then?...

Not at all. The DNA definition seems to be right for the known forms though.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

..., and that's the crux of my argument: since it's not DNA itself but the properties allowed by DNA, ie that a system is self-replicating and adaptive, well, that certainly seems to be what religion does - it seems to change according to it's social environment and to self-replicate like any idea does. It's DNA molecule is the human mind, and it's imperatives for evolutionary change are the contrary-to-religion ideas that the human mind can create.

I'd suggest reading 'The Egoistic Gene' again. You obviously have before but it sounds like it wouldn't hurt to do so again.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

...Oh god, whether it's tongue-in-cheek or not, I'm very worried that somebody is calling themselves 'Darwinist' as if it's a belief. Score one for the raving fundamentalist nutcases.

1.It's certainly not tongue-in-cheek.

2.Darwinism is not a belief since you don't have to believe. Knowing the facts is sufficient. Save your worries for other things.

3.Somehow I fail to see fundamentalism in my posts.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I believe in god as a living thing. I believe god lives through humans which is why he created us. Before us, he just existed, through us he lives.

I like that idea a lot, it's an interesting way of looking at it, thanks.

quote:Originally posted by Darwinist:

Originally posted by sp0rkius:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) How do you define life then?...

Not at all. The DNA definition seems to be right for the known forms though.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

..., and that's the crux of my argument: since it's not DNA itself but the properties allowed by DNA, ie that a system is self-replicating and adaptive, well, that certainly seems to be what religion does - it seems to change according to it's social environment and to self-replicate like any idea does. It's DNA molecule is the human mind, and it's imperatives for evolutionary change are the contrary-to-religion ideas that the human mind can create.

I'd suggest reading 'The Egoistic Gene' again. You obviously have before but it sounds like it wouldn't hurt to do so again.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

...Oh god, whether it's tongue-in-cheek or not, I'm very worried that somebody is calling themselves 'Darwinist' as if it's a belief. Score one for the raving fundamentalist nutcases.

1.It's certainly not tongue-in-cheek.

2.Darwinism is not a belief since you don't have to believe. Knowing the facts is sufficient. Save your worries for other things.

3.Somehow I fail to see fundamentalism in my posts.



I haven't read the Egoistic Gene (isn't it 'The Selfish Gene'?), the process of DNA self-replication is common knowledge, and the mechanism of natural selection is common knowledge.

My point about your name is that it's actually not laughable for somebody to state that they 'believe' in Darwinism ("OMG I DONT BELIEVEE ITS FACTS ROFFLE"... you know what I mean, people like to make out that it's a belief) nowadays, which is very worrying, and is a result of the endless march of these fundamentalist anti-Enlightenment nutcases. I wasn't accusing you of fundamentalism.

quote:I like that idea a lot, it's an interesting way of looking at it, thanks.

It is called Panentheism.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

It is called Panentheism.

I've advocated that theory a couple of times on this forum as it happens, but this isn't panentheism.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

...isn't it 'The Selfish Gene'?...

Yes, you're right. I thought, that the english title would be the same as the german.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

I wasn't accusing you of fundamentalism.

Okay.

As an ex-Christian you should know that God is a Spirit, and he has no physical form, and his only physical embodiment is his son Jesus, (just thought of something, if God is a Spirit, how the hell did he have sex, did he fuck himself to create his son? http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)), and God is omnipotent... yadda, yadda, yadda.

To me, God is non-existent as an entity.