my belief:

The belief in a god is subjective by nature. Every individual has a chance to create their own personal god. It is their choice to have one or to not have one. People create rules or commandments for themselves that they must follow, not god. If they do not follow their own guidelines, they are condemned to their own creation of hell and there god is their to help motivate them to do good to stay away from this place and to give them comfort.



Short summary:

God = Subjective (If you believe in him he exists for you and only you. If you dont believe in god, then he does not exist.)

Afterlife = Only exists in imagination (If you believe you are going to hell, then when you die you will go to a hell that you have created. If you believe that there is nothing after death, then there will be nothing.)

Another idea that occured to me is that the belief of a non-personal God and the belief in science are the exact same thing. They both are answers to unanswered questions that require faith. Both can not be proven (god or theories) and they both can be modified and changed over time to whatever fits the popular belief at that time.

I want to open this up to anyone who might have somthing to add... my views are open to change and i want to hear what other poeple think (especially criticism).



[This message has been edited by twobwutfor (edited 11-19-2006).]

what lead you to this conclusion

philosophy classes opened my eyes to the subjective/objective concept and the solution to the existance of god can not be as easy as he exists/doesn't exist. Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory is preferable, but between the two thoeries of gods existance are equally probable. So there has to be somthing in the middle... God both existing and not existing at the same time.

[This message has been edited by twobwutfor (edited 11-19-2006).]

I've recently put some thought into this theory also, it seems to make sense at some points, but it's just way to unbelievable for most to look twice at.

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

my belief:

The belief in a god is subjective by nature. Every individual has a chance to create their own personal god. It is their choice to have one or to not have one. People create rules or commandments for themselves that they must follow, not god. If they do not follow their own guidelines, they are condemned to their own creation of hell and there god is their to help motivate them to do good to stay away from this place and to give them comfort.



Short summary:

God = Subjective (If you believe in him he exists for you and only you. If you dont believe in god, then he does not exist.)

Afterlife = Only exists in imagination (If you believe you are going to hell, then when you die you will go to a hell that you have created. If you believe that there is nothing after death, then there will be nothing.)

Another idea that occured to me is that the belief of a non-personal God and the belief in science are the exact same thing. They both are answers to unanswered questions that require faith. Both can not be proven (god or theories) and they both can be modified and changed over time to whatever fits the popular belief at that time.

I want to open this up to anyone who might have somthing to add... my views are open to change and i want to hear what other poeple think (especially criticism).



lol god is gay

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory is preferable,

No, it doesn't.

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

but between the two thoeries of gods existance are equally probable.

It doesn't work that way. By that logic, we can say that the chances of flying unicorns existing is equally as likely as them not existing or that the Bad News Bears have just as much of a chance at winning a game against the NY Yankees as they do of losing.

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

So there has to be somthing in the middle... God both existing and not existing at the same time.

If you believe that there are equal chances of something existing or not existing, they must both exist? That's 100% illogical! There is either a suitcase full money that exists under my bed or there isn't. No logic can prove that it does and doesn't.

It seems you are using an equivocal definition of what god is. If god exists for one person and not for another and is purely a subjective matter, then it seems pointless to even talk about god The word 'god' becomes meaningless when one person is communicating to another.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

It doesn't work that way. By that logic, we can say that the chances of flying unicorns existing is equally as likely as them not existing or that the Bad News Bears have just as much of a chance at winning a game against the NY Yankees as they do of losing.

[/B]

First, you are trying to compare god (an entity that is believed through feelings) with physical things (unicorns). Saying that unicorns do not exist because no one has ever SEEN one does not have the same power to discredit god. I have never SEEN god, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist to me or others.

quote:Originally posted by xray:

If you believe that there are equal chances of something existing or not existing, they must both exist? That's 100% illogical! There is either a suitcase full money that exists under my bed or there isn't. No logic can prove that it does and doesn't.

[/B]

Thats not what i said. I did not say they both must exist. I said they both CAN exist. I said that there are equal chances of god existing as there are of god not existing, so there must be somthing that compensates both. If i can see a suitcase of money under your bed, then it exists for me just like if i believe there is a god, he does exist. If you can't see the suitcase of money, then it doesnt exist for you. The suitcase is perception, and perception is subjective. You can not discredit what i see with what you can/cant see and it gets more difficult to discredit people with beliefs because there is no physical factor.

I am looking at the belief of god as a personal being, not an overall being. If I say that he exists, i am talking about it on a personal level. That is why he can both exist and not exist at the same time depending on the person. An example of this is if someone trips and falls. One person can look at it and laugh, another worry, and another feel pain. Which is the right response? They are all correct. Different feelings can exist concurrently, just as different views of god can, even if they contradict.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

It seems you are using an equivocal definition of what god is. If god exists for one person and not for another and is purely a subjective matter, then it seems pointless to even talk about god The word 'god' becomes meaningless when one person is communicating to another.

Saying that it is pointless to talk about god is like saying it is pointless to talk about the weather. Just because people have different views (its hot/cold/humid)does not mean you can not discuss it. Even though most people may not agree, you can still open the minds and eyes of others into a different way of looking at things. I personally do not like the word god because it has so many preconceptions associated with it. God can be anything you want him to be, but because of society, he seems to fit a certain mold for most poeple. For this reason, most people wihtin the same community will believe in a more similar god that those in another part of the world.

[This message has been edited by twobwutfor (edited 11-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

First, you are trying to compare god (an entity that is believed through feelings) with physical things (unicorns).

There is no difference. Some believe Gog/gods can take physical forms and it is wholly possible to believe in flying unicorns through feelings (even invisible ones).



quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

Saying that unicorns do not exist because no one has ever SEEN one does not have the same power to discredit god. I have never SEEN god, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist to me or others.

xray never said that unicorns don't exist because no one has seen one and he said nothing about discrediting God.

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

Thats not what i said. I did not say they both must exist. I said they both CAN exist. I said that there are equal chances of god existing as there are of god not existing, so there must be somthing that compensates both.

How are you coming to the conclusion that there are equal chances of His existence or non-existence? Just as xray said, "by that logic, we can say that the chances of flying unicorns existing is equally as likely as them not existing".

Why must there be something that compensates both? If there are two equally good baseball teams playing each other, only one wins. If there were equal chances of God existing or not existing, you have shown no logical argument that would cause Him to exist and not exist at the same time.



quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

If i can see a suitcase of money under your bed, then it exists for me just like if i believe there is a god, he does exist.

Reality doesn't work that way. Seeing the suitcase is evidence for existence, believing is not.



quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

If you can't see the suitcase of money, then it doesnt exist for you. The suitcase is perception, and perception is subjective.

With some things, such as colors. We may perceive them differently -some are color blind, etc., but the suitcase is not perception! It either exists or it doesn't. One may hallucinate and perceive that it exists, but that does not create it in reality. When he sobers up, he will not be able to reap the rewards of a suitcase full of cash.



quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

If I say that he exists, i am talking about it on a personal level. That is why he can both exist and not exist at the same time depending on the person.

You're talking gibberish. One specific god either exists or doesn't. If you're saying that one person's definition of God is the Christian God and the other is that God is a ham sandwich, then yes, of course.

But based on the suitcase example, it doesn't seem that that's what you're saying.

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

An example of this is if someone trips and falls. One person can look at it and laugh, another worry, and another feel pain. Which is the right response? They are all correct. Different feelings can exist concurrently, just as different views of god can, even if they contradict.

You don't believe that anyone implied that different views of God can't exist, do you?

God either exists or he doesn't. If there is a heaven/hell, then that's where you go, if there is not, then you just die. Saying that the afterlife is subjective is not correct, either there is an afterlife or there is not. If you are suggesting that your mind manifests the afterlife according to it's own conecept, then that would mean that there is an afterlife, and I'm sure nobody will accept that as fact based on this theory.

I have to start this response with a disclaimer. I do not intend to discredit anybody's views on spirituality. We all have our perspectives and for reasons based on experiences in life.

I can not tell you that you are either right or wrong in your viewpoint or perspective. I can only tell you what I have come to know as truth. For me - however, it just so happens that millions of others have also experienced it and believe in a divine and a path to Him by Jesus. --End of Disclaimer

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

my belief:

The belief in a god is subjective by nature. Every individual has a chance to create their own personal god. It is their choice to have one or to not have one.

I agree with this view 100% - however, each of us who are convicted of our views, believes with all that we are that we are right in our views.

What ideas will stand up to scrutiny? We have to agree that a contradiction in views indicates a falacy, as not all views can be right when they conflict. In fact there can only be one truth. That truth is, we are born to serve something. It is our nature as the laws of God dictate that we must work or die. All other things prosper or parish on that simple truth. This is "Interest's first law of philosophy"

quote:

People create rules or commandments for themselves that they must follow, not god.



This is an interesting thought. Though you trumpet it's relivance, it is flawed by nature. Man made rules nor commandments can contradict the natural laws and commandments of God and survive for long. Laws of death and sin can not be side stepped as the consequence is real and that is the key point. Reality will always overrule and trump the fantastical ways of man. Consider the outcome of man made laws vs the laws of God / or the laws of consequence - which ones have endured the tests of time?

This is "Interest's 2nd rule of philosophy"

quote:

If they do not follow their own guidelines, they are condemned to their own creation of hell and there god is their to help motivate them to do good to stay away from this place and to give them comfort.

This is on the assumption that there is no such thing as the human spirit or the Spirit of God nor another "dimension" of influence in this world. All things are driven by the spirit of man and by what that spirit is influenced and motivated by. This is another foundational truth of the human drama. What we serve is what motivates us and directs us to action.



This is "Interes's 3rd rule of philosophy"

quote:

Short summary:

God = Subjective (If you believe in him he exists for you and only you. If you dont believe in god, then he does not exist.)

True - I agree with you. However, this goes back to rule 1. If there is a contradiction in views then there is a falacy which means the views must be scrutinized to seek out the truth.

How? Evidence and signs. If one view claims or predicts it's outcome and the outcome is what was predicted then we can only accept it is true if it shows a repeating pattern.

If God doesn't exist then how can so many claim that God has done what He has promised to do in their life? Whether you accept the claim as valid or not is inconsequential to the truth of the outcome of the initial claim.

If God is subjective and a fantasy in the minds of men then the evidence would be evident. That sign is the lack of agreement on the view.

Since the views of anti God exist but very few supporing views convene or colaborate that view, it tells me that it is more false then those who claim there is a God who saves by Jesus.

Many more are in agreement of salvation and can colaborate a similiar experience without once ever speaking to or even knowing someone with a similiar experience then those who claim the opposite.

The truth is in the outcome and only in the future hides the truth. Don't be to certain that what you see is the "truth" - "Interest's 4th rule of philosophy



quote:

Afterlife = Only exists in imagination (If you believe you are going to hell, then when you die you will go to a hell that you have created. If you believe that there is nothing after death, then there will be nothing.)



This can't be proven true or false as it is a matter of "faith"

Therefore, speculation of it's truth is all we have. However, if your spirit is lead to one place or another and it is lead to believe in consequence of actions then that is the begining to understanding what a "hell" is. "I'm in hell!" is a statment of exasperation due to bad circumstances. Bad circumstances is usually created by a long line of bad choices. The self created "hell" is true.

So if that line of logic is true then how can the consequence of not following the natural laws or God's laws have an opposite result? It can't -

A combination of many bad decision can only result in a bad outcome.

"Interest's 5th rule of philosophy"

quote:

Another idea that occured to me is that the belief of a non-personal God and the belief in science are the exact same thing. They both are answers to unanswered questions that require faith. Both can not be proven (god or theories) and they both can be modified and changed over time to whatever fits the popular belief at that time.

I agree - a lie can always shift and decieve. The truth remains unchanging.

"Intersts 6th rule of philosophy"

quote:

I want to open this up to anyone who might have somthing to add... my views are open to change and i want to hear what other poeple think (especially criticism).

Thank you for the opportunity

quote:Originally posted by twobwutfor:

my belief:

The belief in a god is subjective by nature. Every individual has a chance to create their own personal god. It is their choice to have one or to not have one. People create rules or commandments for themselves that they must follow, not god. If they do not follow their own guidelines, they are condemned to their own creation of hell and there god is their to help motivate them to do good to stay away from this place and to give them comfort.



Short summary:

God = Subjective (If you believe in him he exists for you and only you. If you dont believe in god, then he does not exist.)

Afterlife = Only exists in imagination (If you believe you are going to hell, then when you die you will go to a hell that you have created. If you believe that there is nothing after death, then there will be nothing.)

Another idea that occured to me is that the belief of a non-personal God and the belief in science are the exact same thing. They both are answers to unanswered questions that require faith. Both can not be proven (god or theories) and they both can be modified and changed over time to whatever fits the popular belief at that time.

I want to open this up to anyone who might have somthing to add... my views are open to change and i want to hear what other poeple think (especially criticism).





i agree completly.

I think everything is subjective.

The world is what we make it.