Do I beleive in GOD? (page 15)

cofty

It's a modern fashion to define god with such esoteric notions that the word becomes meaningless.

Monsieur

cofty

synonyms, hypernyms , hyponyms, they have always existed.

in addition, what is 'esoteric', as you fondly state, doesn't make it untrue.

cofty

If the best that can be said about god is couched in esoteric philosophy, isn't it time to accept that there is nothing useful to be said?

Finkelstein

That doesn't make any sense. Even the genesis accounts states... there IS a beginning to the universe.

Reading the Genesis account reveals that there was never a connection to the god creator/spiritual being and toward mankind,

unless you accept illogical steps of that creative process.

If you accept the begging of the universe then you would also accept there was once a beginning of a god creator.

There is a difference between emotive theory and cognitive theory.

Human ignorance of the world in which we live in paired with human imagination, holds exclusivity toward

the definition of a probable god creator by mankind.

Monsieur

cofty

i wouldn't label science and math as useless.

you are admiting that the concept of 'God' is incomprehensible to you. but again, this is only because your mind has been molded into thinking that God can only be ONE thing, and ONE thing only.

In another thread i proved HOW God is Love.

Here, I've proved how God is also perfect/irrefutable/eternally trustworthy math and science, thus making God very real.

cofty

i wouldn't label science and math as useless - Monsieur

You already know that I never said otherwise. Are you wanting to score cheap debating points or have a conversation?

you are admiting that the concept of 'God' is incomprehensible to you

No I'm saying that resorting to esoteric philosophy to salvage a failed notion of a god is pointless.

Stating something and proving something is not the same thing.

prologos

Fstein.--the idea or need for the BEGINNING* of the originator/creator/god could be the sign of a flawed mental process

not unlike the "flatlander" mentioned above trying to figure out the meaning, but rejecting the evidence of the at least TWO more dimensions he/she/it can observe, measure.

*Beginnings like kicking the Can down the road or

It is beginnings, like turtles all the way to the infinite past.

tec

Reading the Genesis account reveals that there was never a connection to the god creator/spiritual being and toward mankind,

unless you accept illogical steps of that creative process.

I am not sure what you mean here.

If you accept the begging of the universe then you would also accept there was once a beginning of a god creator.

Why?

Peace,

tammy

Monsieur

cofty you insist that i speak of 'esoteric philosophy' when describing God,

this leads me to believe that the subject of God is incomprehensible to you, that it's a formula too complex and like anything thats too difficult to wrap the head around you tend to discard it and deem it useless.

im simply calling God what god is, perfect and logical. and what could be more perfect and logical than provable mathematics and science. there is absolutely nothing esoteric or philosophical about these two subjects IF you understand them.

Discard whatever myth you were taught about God, the angry old man in 'heaven', and what Im expressing to you starts making a lot of sense. This shouldnt be too hard since as you rightly stated, THAT notion of god has failed.

cofty

By esoteric philosophy I was referring to the posts above by prologos.

Having said that, you haven't established any connection betweem maths, science and god.

Perhaps if you toned down your sweeeping statements about what you think others can or can't understand we could have a useful conversation.

Do I beleive in GOD?

Share this