I say that this is pantheism, and it is incompatible with your other claim that God is the cause of man, the universe, and all transient things. The whole cannot be the cause of its own constituent parts.
God or tao, I'm not sure a name or title is important but there seems to be a way to the all of existence.Thanks!
What do you say about my idea that God and existence are identical.
God or tao, I'm not sure a name or title is important but there seems to be a way to the all of existence.
I use a thought experiment. Maybe you could play along?
Think of an infinite circle. What do you see?
What do you see when you think of an infinite circle?You know what, you and I should just work together to concur on things.
You and I we concur that we exist.
We are transient beings, i.e. we have a beginning at birth and an ending at death, we also concur on that.
About me thinking of an infinite circle, yes, I concur with you that we can think of an infinite circle in our mind.
This thread from yours truly is about the issue God exists or not.
As we proceed from concurrence to concurrence, we will come to the concurred on finding for us both: that God exists, or God does not exist.
Nothing doesn't exist so it can't be seen. However, here's another question which you probably already know: Where is the center of an infinite circle? Ans: Everywhere.What do you see when you think of an infinite circle?
I will tell the correct answer. Nothing.
This is why I personally value faith over belief and why it makes no sense to me to try to prove God tao the source to anyone.Nothing doesn't exist so it can't be seen. However, here's another question which you probably already know: Where is the center of an infinite circle? Ans: Everywhere.
I think exercising one's faith requires that one follow wherever the spirit leads them, and when referring to the source of existence, it necessarily follows that the origin or source of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression. It is logically inconsistent and incoherent to assume the existence of the origin of existenceThis is why I personally value faith over belief and why it makes no sense to me to try to prove God tao the source to anyone.
Yes everywhere is correct.
posted by yrger on Oct 30, 2020 post #1
I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.
Here is my concept of God:
"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning."
Dear militant atheist, what is your concept of God?
....Still boring irrelevant and disingenuous......I am the author of this thread on:
“I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.”
Let us all work as to concur on things needed to resolve the issue God exists or not.
No need to seek my credentials, just see if you everyone writing here, can we all concur on matters that will resolve the issue God exists or not.
First item for us all to concur on is the name God, what does it stand for?
Now, if you anyone seek to convince everyone else that the name God is as funny as the name, orbiting teapot in space (Bertrand Russell) or flying spaghetti monster (Russell's fans), then I would suggest that you go and start your own thread, instead of writing here.
I have thought about the meaning of the name, God, and today my concept of God is as follows:
“God is the permanent self-existent cause of man and the universe and everything transient, i.e. with a beginning and an ending." (22 words)
You notice that in my concept of God, He did and is still doing it, namely, everything that scientists are trying to explain, and also more than scientists are trying to explain, namely, things that scientists don't care to explain at all like the question where does a dead person go upon death.
So, please, as the name God is already very well-known and I for one maintain that my concept of God is generally the common one that English literate people understand to be God, let us concur at least on the name, even though you everyone might want to add to or detract from what God has done and is still doing.
There, what do you say, guys writing here, do we concur on the use of the name God, in re the resolution of the issue, God exists or not?
Someone thinking himself very smart will right away inform everyone that with the concept of God, there is already the circular reasoning on the existence of God.
I tell you, please concur with me, that we will go forth into the universe that is studied by scientists, to seek for evidence that points to the existence of God, starting with the nose on our face, which nose is an example of something that has existence.
So, there is no circular reasoning here.
My concept of God has to do with what I call God from reason, now others here want to talk about their God from religion: well, that is all right with me, except that your God from religion is not worth any attention from mankind unless He has achieved everything that scientists are studying and even more, like continuing the existence of dead people who are supposed to have souls as per the common teaching of people with their God from religion.
Now, dear readers and fellow posters here, see how and what reactions we will read from posters here who have been active in this thread.
My writing here is reminiscent of my writing elsewhere in the internet.
If you have a specific example to bring up then do so.Just because you responded to comments made doesn't mean that you're paying attention.
I stopped reading weeks ago because you and several others just kept giving excuses and I grew weary of it.If you have a specific example to bring up then do so.
Otherwise read the thread for yourself and see how Yrger has been persistently ignoring everything said to him for 100 pages now.