Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum  Once again, the definition that I hold is what everyone is waiting on to dispute. |
I didn't ask you for your definition of God. Perhaps you should reread my post, but if not, I will repeat what I said and add that I hold firmly that it is true:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by modest I really think this conversation would be greatly helped if you gave an example of an alternate definition and alternate name for god. Even if it's not a definition or name that you advocate, just an example of what you're talking about would help over the abstractions above. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum All forms of existance are in a constant state of change. |
This does not differentiate between:
- forms changing
- human understanding of forms changing
But, yes, the definition of god sure does seem to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum Why should religion not also be? |
If the point of your argument is that religion should be more inclined to change then I completely agree. You'll find similar such remarks from me in
previous posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum Why is it assumed that because tradition religions are based on infallible truth, that new forms of religion are assumed to be false, like their predecessors? |
What on earth does a traditional religion's position on infallible truth have to do with the validity of a new religion? Who made that argument? Are you talking to me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum Were not ancient forms of science considered infallible at one time? |
Well... "Ancient forms of science" were indistinguishable from ancient philosophy which also included what we now call religion. As far as it being infallible, you'd have to be more specific. Many ancient Greeks claimed their system was the best system or school of philosophy - I don't know if they went as far as claiming it was infallible. Nor do I think ancient Eastern philosophy was so inclined to say such a thing.
After Christianity came on to the scene there was more of that kind of thing - but that doesn't really qualify as "ancient". Nor were most forms of science in the middle ages (such as alchemy) really considered "infallible".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum And is not the very nature of religion indicated by some hint of that which exists beyond the corporeal world? |
The nature of religion is indicated by
making claims about that which exists beyond the corporeal world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum If a religion does not make some proposition about such topics, it becomes more of a philosphy than a religion. |
Philosophy is perfectly capable of making wild speculations about what exists apart from the corporeal world - unfortunately
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum I don't believe my question was off base at all. I believe that ideas of God in our minds are not aligned. |
You said that the debate is always about the existence of god when in fact historically it nearly never has been. That was off base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum As said before, since all things are in transition, it is ignorant to say that because any idea of God is dependant upon that which came before it that it is false. |
Who said that? Your post is a response to me, clearly, but you are arguing against a strawman. I did not make the statement that any idea of god is false because it relies on previous definitions of god. That is an ignorant argument and I wouldn't make it. I have completely different reasons for thinking ideas of god are based on something false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum By trying to put an idea of God into any preexisting concept, you are falling into the same trap as those you choose to rebuke. |
What preexisting concept did I put God in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum They feel they must choose a form of God rather than understand it's formlessness. |
Formlessness, as in "the way" of the Tao? Is this an example of a non-traditional view of God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum Because you believe Kant is correct, it makes him so? |
Kant said no action, in and of itself, is either wrong or right and shakespeare said "for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" and you said "right and wrong have many definitions for many different people"
Since I agree with all three of you, it begs the question... what the hell are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum I was specifically saying that scientists do not call science God, but could if their definition of God were not controlled by preconceived notions. |
Knowing some scientists, I can confidently say that they would not see this as beneficial. They would see no benefit in calling science "god" and would therefore not do it. Do you think they should? Do you think they would benefit from such a thing? Do you think science should benefit from such a thing? If so, how so? If not, what is your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum Although the truth of what it is allows a person to better understand the very nature of existance, I don't feel that this conversation has moved in a direction that would foster any need of me to give my definition. It seems that some are still trying to fight old battles. |
I didn't ask you for your definition of god! It is very possible that you advocate a broadening of the definition without advocating a particular one. I fully accept that is both possible and consistent. It nevertheless would be helpful if you gave examples. Your reply is clearly directed to my post so if this comment is for other people in this thread than you should indicate that. But don't assume I'm making the same argument other people are making nor that I'm making the argument that people have made to you previously. You seem to be trying to fight an old battle that I was in no way part of.
~modest
2 Many Bugs Champion!
