I am curious if anyone can form a positive coherent Ontology for god.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmhVuOxuo_I&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn


What is god?

<---me

a great idea

A myth

Depends on whether you chose to answer philosophically or rationally.

To say there is no God is ludicrous since if the concept exists then there is a very good chance there is some kind of omniscient consciousness that exists in everything that we could call God.

To say God is in everything if viewing the whole of the universe as part of the greater "Whole" then since God IS the universe we live in then God is of everything.
That unto itself is a philosophical nightmare waiting to be unleashed in this thread.

Now I shall complicate this even more. What if (OH YEAH I LIKE WHAT IFS) the universe as we understand it is not the only one and again part of a bunch of other universes and God is of all of them? Now the concept of God expands even more because in the scope of our universe each one of us is in the same scope less than a an atom of a molecule on a protein jacket of a cell wall of a intestinal cell lining your upper intestine. If god seems deaf to you than there may be a reason. Are you aware of every atom in your body? God might be but then again Free will opens a whole new philosophical dilemma about gods presence in this world.

So now the Empirical side of it. So far there has been nothing concrete to SHOW that God exists outside of some questionable acts and questionable circumstance. Most miracles have explanations. A rare few are still unexplainable but that is not enough to concretely prove the existence of a higher power.

Now with man kind becoming more intelligent in technical thinking than other animals we seek to find things that are greater than us for a variety of reasons but it boils down to God being something Man can use. Make a sacrifice get favorable rains...
Pray to God for forgiveness...
Pray to God for help...
God also gives man as a social creature a sense of unity and community.
That is why God was made into man's image.

God in the bible was asked who he, she, it... whatever was and God replied 'I am.' Good enough for me to not need to pin a face on the Supreme being. If God is all things then God would be a presence you feel without form.

Tell ya what. Sticking your finger in an electric socket sure feels like getting struck by God.

If a man of any kind is standing in front of you telling you that they are God,

Chances are good it is fake!

If you hear god and feel something there you cant see but a glass of water appeared hovering in front of you asking you to sit down and wet your throat because what it had to tell you was about to shake your world, and we are talking you don't see anyone but you sure know someone is there, then chances are VERY good you are either in the presence of a seriously powerful creature or you are in the presence of God. Then again a little skepticism goes a long way to making bad mistakes!

JMO...

Does Ontology recapitulate Phylonology?

So instead of answering what god is, you believe what ever god is must exist becuase we have a concept for it? So then the flying sphagetti monster probably exists becuase we have a concept for it? Little flying pink elephants? No less a concept we cannot even positively define.

Again this thread is NOT asking you to prove god, just define god.

So ambiguity is good enough for you . . . well can we even debate the existence of something we cannot define?

So the sensation of being shocked is god?

What about Jesus, is that less likely to be fake becuase some people wrote down that it was true?

I agree you should be skeptical . . . however I would hope if you heard voices in your head and floating glasses and did not take any mind altering substances, then I would hope you would seek professional help.


Do you mean Phylogeny?

the subconscious mind......

So god is subconscious mind? Who's subconscious mind?

What are the totality of characteristics of this subconscious mind that is god?

Pretty much a throw away statement unless you want to describe how a subconscious mind could even be considered god.

what be the definition of god???

seems many, many, many definitions are possible, concerning many different aspects of things, but IF something HOLDS "power and control" over something, then it is the "decider", has power over, and be the final ultimate LIMITER of mans potential and possibility???

so in this sense, the sub mind is GOD OR UMTIMATE POWER OVER MIND???

the subconscious mind only allowing the conscious mind to "HEAR" and "KNOW" limited data, so therefore garnering EVERY DECISION the conscious mind make, BY FORETHOUGHT NOT EVEN KNOWN TO THE CONSCIOUS MIND???

"power over"???

science is now concuring with the same notions with good evidence???

this be exactely in unison with things once spoken in text, saying man is LIMITED in AWARENESS, called as blind???

man also called within text as "hard of hearing", "never leanring", describing man as "slaves"???

to what???

the subconscious mind???

blind to what???

the power of the brain???

the amount of "awareness" possible, which equate to "power" or "energy" available within human beings???

ALL THE DATA RECORDED BY THE BRAIN SINCE ARRIVAL, and only "registering" by hearing as true about 5-10% of it's data intake, THE REST GOING INTO THE "HOLDING TANK" THE SUB MIND???

creating a CONTROLLER OF THE MIND???

for the conscious mind to actaually only believe ONE SINGLE PIECE OF REALITY, ITSELF, as the greatest guide of "WHAT IS POSSIBLE"???

with such strong conviction that the "mind" actually believe it's own "eye", IS THE MOST ACCURATE, MORE ACCURATE THAN ALL OTHER EYE'S COMBINED???

ILLUSION INDEED UNTO DELUSION???

for the MIND to "will itself", TO NOT BE DELUSIONED, ACTAULLY CREATING THE STATE OF DELUSION???

simply making it not consider all facts of all humans equally, and as having any good relevance???

no human on it's own WITHOUT BRAIN CONTROL, can be or "will itself knowingly" to such narrow mindedness and so blind???

if man is being collectively controlled by subconscious thought, then there has definitely been a ILLUSION PERPETRATED UPON MANKIND???

and indeed, for science and text to both ASSERT THE SAME, then perhaps the simple understanding of "how" the human brain is "limiting itself", lead to more "potential to be uncovered"???

all possibilities as possible actually lead the brain unto greater awareness, but this way of thinking it FOREIGN AND NOT THE WAY OF THE CONSCIOUS MIND???

I remember why I tend to not respond to you David.

I fail to see a single positive coherent property that can be used as a definition.


Barring a definition I see no reason to even have a debate on the existence of god.

Where is nubby? Maybe he can have a crack at it.

subconcious mind was a definition of "god", and you wished for WHY this might be said???

subconscious mind HOLD POWER OVER CONSCIOUS MIND???

sub mind then CONTROL or is as GOD to the CONSCIOUS MIND???

how is that so "complex" for you???

"two eye's" that deem itself as the most guide of positive and coherent properties, is the exact delusion spoken of, lol???

what a joke from a brain so closed, only a shoehorn could get any data other than "itself" into itself, lol.....

indeed, delusions unto infinity of self as wise.........

I doubt very much that anyone can. Also, there are many "gods" out there. I could attempt to respond to this question, as could Abra - but you will get two completely different responses. Throw Jeannie, Smiless and Funches into the mix, and it's off to the races.

It is a thread of futility.

We know that God isn't material (or if your a Pantheist, he's all material) and we know that no one has seen God (with the exceptions of those using some really potent drugs).

So - should we set some boundries here? Do you want the God of Christainity, The Pantheistic God, Satan (the God of Satanists) Allah, Zeus, Isis, the list goes on.

Where would you like this to head?

Eljay,

Clearly you're idea of pantheism is truly warped.

Billy,

I couldn't watch the video because I'm on dial-up. That's a bummer.

Just the same, you asked for a positive coherent ontology of god.

Pantheism is without a doubt the most positive picture of God we have. In the pantheisic view all is illusion (not material) and when we wake up from the dream we know our true nature which is eternal spirit.

There are no losers in this picture and no hateful egotistical Godhead who is out to cast people into eternal damnation if they don't lick his boots.

As far as precisely how the ontology can work I think that modern science has given us many clues. Certainly both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity favor the pantheistic view of spirit.

Quantum Mechanics has shown us that the material world is indeed illusion. And relativity has shown us how the illusion of time was created.

Evolution has shown us how the dice were tossed. Nuclear physics and chemistry has shown us what the dice are like and how they behave.

We are this universe. There's no question about that whatsoever.

The idea that God is some spoiled brat egotistical orphan, who has no parents or God of his own to teach him manners is truly an insane idea.

If there is a spiritual nature to our existence then clearly we are it.

The idea that we are pets of an angry jealous judgmental God is truly insane, for where would such a spoiled brat of come from himself?

Clearly, we are it. As are all other inhabitants of this universe.

The bottom line when asking these questions is pretty simple.

Are we the form?

Or are we the thing that is taking the form?

If we are the form, then atheism is true.

If we are the thing that is taking the form, then pantheism is true.

There really are no other options without creating a spoiled brat ophan Godhead like story-book mythologies do.

If we are the pets of some spoiled brat God who gets jealous if his boots aren't being licked then we're in truly sad shape.

Let's all hope that either pantheism or atheism is true. Religions that require judgmental egotistical godheads only make things worse. If those realities are true then we'd be forever slaves or pets, or we'd be mercilessly tormented by a creator who has far less compassion than most of us.

How anyone can believe that we are the victims of a jealous godhead who lusts to have his boots licked is beyond me.

It's truly either pantheism or atheism. There really isn't much room for anything else without considering the insane and demented.

But would an insane creator truly be a "God" or would it just be a spoiled brat playing with its human pets?

It seems to me that we need to be careful what we label as a 'God'.

If Hitler had created us would that mean that we need to worship him as "God"?

When would we acknowlege that we're at the mercy of a demon?

Abra, I thought about you the other day when I was at the book store I actually laughed at loud I bought a book about how a guy tries to live his life for a year LITERALLY according to the bible. It's in the humor section. Friggin hilarious

I am gonna leave this one alone.

Sorry, I had to look that up.

"Ontology in philosophy of being <part. of εἶναι: to be> and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences."


From Shakespeare:

"To be or not to be, that is the question.

My ontology of God is my own existence.

(That is not to say that I think I'm God in the sense that most people think of God.)

To exist, is God. I know I exist. That is all I know for certain.

Ill try, I guess.

The only Being who's reason for existence is in himself.

That was an awesome video Billy, and it is the exact thing I have said before. The argument for or against the existence of "GOD" is a moot point because no one can define GOD.

Therefore you will find that most arguments will be about religious dogma and Doctrine....not God.

But if GOD is simply defined as existence, then we can all agree that God exists simply because we know that we exist.

There is your proof of God... if God is defined as existence.

I liked the definition:

"The one that is." (Pantheism)

Is = to be.

to be = to exist.

God is existence.

Exactly, and this is why it's truly hilarious when a Christian uses the old adage that "god" can't be disproved.

Maybe the abstract concept can't be disproved (because no one has a decent definition for it).

But dogma can be disproved, and most dogma shoots itself in the foot thus proving internally that it can't be true.

It makes no sense to talk about a supposedly all-merciful God who sends people to hell. That's an oxymoron. Either God sends people to hell, or he's merciful. Make up your mind.

You also can't have a God who weeps when someone goes to hell. There would be no reason for a God to be sad about anyone going to hell. Either they DESERVE it, or they don't!

If they DESERVE it, then what's to weep about?

And if they don't, then that would imply that God is letting decent people fall through the cracks. In that event then God wouldn't be an more effcient than human societies.

They want to simultaneously claim that God is perfect, yet their dogma demands that God is riddled with flaws.

You just can't have it both ways. If God is perfect then no souls can be 'lost' that don't DESERVE to be lost.

And if that's the case then no one would need to worry about being 'saved' based on what they've chosen to believe.

In short, dogma is not God, and when dogma is claimed to be God it necessarily must fall flat on its face in the mud.

Dogma has proven itself to be false.

So we know that dogma is not God.

That's one thing that we CAN KNOW.

It all comes down to pantheism or atheism. Those are really the only two concepts that have any chance of being true, all the other dogmas are necessarily proven to be false by their own internal contradictions.