Nooby struggle to get a firm grip on God.

[nooby]

God is like a fish. Slips out very easily
Edit If you try to catch it using your hands
God is not supposed to be grasped that way.

If you could "Catch" God in factual terms
then the believers and the unbelievers would assert
that what you caught is a human social political construct
and not the real thing.

Theists and atheists almost never agree on anything about God

But one thing most of the believers and non-believers agree upon
is that

God has to be real for to be worthy of worship .

If God is not real then God is a false God and thus
of no usage for the believers or for the non-believers alike.

Now I am not a good thinker so maybe that is why I fail to follow
their reasoning.

1. Why does God has to be real?
2. If God is man made then Humans made God real by definition
or else they would have no usage of God. They would see God
as a false or a faked God.

3. I see God as I see Music or other forms of Human art.
No need for the Music to be "real or supernaturally "real"

As long as the music is enjoyed then it works for me.

Any suggestion where my reasoning goes wrong?

[Bruce B]

1. Why does God has to be real?

I don't know that he does. And considering our limits and our conception of him we would still have a small understanding of him.

2. If God is man made then Humans made God real by definition or else they would have no usage of God.

Humans cannot make God. They can make objects and art designed to represent various gods. They can have objects of worship. They can have conceptions of God.

But none of this constitutes 'making' or 'creating' God.

They would see God as a false or a faked God.

Presuming that God's existence or nature depends on man's thoughts and delusions? But who presumes that?

3. I see God as I see Music or other forms of Human art. No need for the Music to be "real or supernaturally "real"

As long as the music is enjoyed then it works for me.

I can understand your reasoning on that. I largely agree.

[nooby]

I wrote everyday in a forum for atheists
and another one for theists and they
did assert me that God had to be real
or else that God would be a false god.

I guess one need to be a better thinker than what I am
to find words for your criticism.

Humans cannot make God. They can make objects and art designed to represent various gods. They can have objects of worship. They can have conceptions of God.

But none of this constitutes 'making' or 'creating' God.

One need to look at this from many angles.

They need God to be real or else it is not God.
But there is no evidence for a real God
So logically the believers have to make that God
or else it all falls apart in front of their own eyes.

I most likely use the wrong words but I fail to find
other words just now,

[ardvark]

But there is no evidence for a real God

Hi Nooby...

I would wholeheartedly disagree, there is much evidence!

First let's consider what God says in Romans 1:20...

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

and Psalm 8...

"O Lord, our Lord, your majestic name fills the earth!
Your glory is higher than the heavens.
You have taught children and infants
to tell of your strength,
silencing your enemies
and all who oppose you.
When I look at the night sky and see the work of your fingers—
the moon and the stars you set in place—
what are mere mortals that you should think about them,
human beings that you should care for them? Yet you made them only a little lower than God
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You gave them charge of everything you made,
putting all things under their authority—
the flocks and the herds
and all the wild animals,
the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea,
and everything that swims the ocean currents.
O Lord, our Lord, your majestic name fills the earth!"

Do you remember me telling you once of my relationship with God? An appreciation and love of His creation is one of the things He's been working in me for quite some time now. And because of this, there are some things that I now know that He likes. Color being one! Could you possibly guess the number of different colors and shades that exist? I don't think all the sample (color) cards you can find in a paint store even begin to cover all the colors He made!

Does anything begin by itself from nothing? Without God, how would that even be possible? To say that the universe and all the galaxies just came into being by itself is same as saying the table my computer sitting on just appeared one day in its present form by itself from nowhere, that all of the atoms and molecules just lined up by themselves to form this finished piece (or pieces) of wood.

Nooby, I think one of the problems you're having is that you are trying to approach or think of God in purely Intellectual terms. Please consider this Verse: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Notice the word "believes." You have to believe that He exists and as you've admitted, you don't....

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Please understand that wisdom and understanding comes from God, it didn't originate with us...

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Proverbs 9:10)

I hope this is of help to you. I do care about you and what you're going through and what I want you to understand that it (life) doesn't end when you die. You were designed and created for eternity. Where you spend that eternity is really up to you. It is a choice you have.

I would really encourage you to see for yourself. Ask Him for a revelation of Himself to you. Ask Him if what I'm speaking to you is true or not and to show you! Ask Him if Jesus is true and if He really did die for us on the Cross for our sins! I think if you are truly seeking for an answer, you will get it.

Take care...

[nooby]

Nooby, I think one of the problems you're having
is that you are trying to approach or think of God
in purely Intellectual terms.

Please consider this Verse: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Notice the word "believes." You have to believe that He exists and as you've admitted, you don't....

ardvark I actually come with an emotional relation to God.
God touched my heart but I see that subjective personal experience
as emotional and not intellectual. That is why I don't want to be seen
as an atheist. Formally due to the definition the atheists makes use of
then I am a logical atheist.

But that is not my real identity. am closer to an emotional believer than too a logical atheist.

Could you point out how you came to the conclusion
that I am an intellectual? I am so far from being intellectual
that I feel sad that you see me as one if them

Could be my bad failing to find good English words
or you are so used to deal with intellectual atheists
that you out of habit ascribe such views to me.

Do you base it on these words?

nooby wrote:
But there is no evidence for a real God

Yes maybe that is mainly intellectual. How else to refer to
lack of evidence. Then I agree but then we take only one
aspect out of the whole spectrum. The most important part
is my emotional response to feeling touched by God.

To me that is an emotional response.

[ardvark]

I actually come with an emotional relation to God.
God touched my heart but I see that subjective personal experience
as emotional and not intellectual.

How can this be if you don't believe that God exists?

Regards...

[Moat]

Powerful emotional reactions are hard-wired into our physical, cellular beings - instinctual - and no belief in "god" is required. For better or worse, such emotions, overall, serve us humans in beneficial ways (along with big brains filled with an abundance of intellectual/rational abilities and imagination). Any lack of belief in a "supernatural god" in no way diminishes either the validity or value of such powerful emotions. Revel in what it means - to you! That's my advice, anyways.

The dilemma often seems to boil down to differences in how one personally defines "god". Semantics? Rhetorical differences? Mostly, it seems. We are all human, and most of us appear to experience emotions in quite a similar way. It's what our imagination does with 'em, where things can - and do - diverge. For better - or for worse...

IMHO!

Bob

[nooby]

Powerful emotional reactions are hard-wired into our physical, cellular beings - instinctual - and no belief in "god" is required. For better or worse, such emotions, overall, serve us humans in beneficial ways (along with big brains filled with an abundance of intellectual/rational abilities and imagination). Any lack of belief in a "supernatural god" in no way diminishes either the validity or value of such powerful emotions. Revel in what it means - to you! That's my advice, anyways.

The dilemma often seems to boil down to differences in how one personally defines "god". Semantics? Rhetorical differences? Mostly, it seems. We are all human, and most of us appear to experience emotions in quite a similar way. It's what our imagination does with 'em, where things can - and do - diverge. For better - or for worse...

IMHO!

Bob

I trust hat Bob are on to something important here.

Doesn't his answer explain what you ardvark ask me above?

I think Bob gives a very good answer. Most likely our body/bodies
has this capacity to make emotional relations to things
that we hope can help us to cope is a welcome guest in one's life.

If God exists or not? Nobody can know such things
or else we would be clear evidence for by now.

I find it most likely that Go is an idea that works as a mental
and psychological and social and even a political tool.

Any physical or supernatural evidence for God is lacking.

Faith in God is exactly that. A faith in God as savior and helper
It has very little to do with supernatural evidence. I doubt there
to exist anything living up to the word Supernatural.

The Bible has nothing to say other than that God is invisible
to the believer unless we talk about "visions" and "Dreams.

[jpeps]

If God exists or not? Nobody can know such things
or else we would be clear evidence for by now.

Okay, so can we move on now? How many more threads for you to state the same conclusion?

[jpeps]

The dilemma often seems to boil down to differences in how one personally defines "god". Semantics? Rhetorical differences? Mostly, it seems. We are all human, and most of us appear to experience emotions in quite a similar way. It's what our imagination does with 'em, where things can - and do - diverge. For better - or for worse...

Bob

Emotions are just nerves registering energy. How energy is registered and how it's used varies according to aptitude and individual development. Highly creative people, for example, generally have far more experience in what you may be referring to. Yesterday I concert tuned a Steinway, and after the tuning the conductor approached me, asking if I would tune his personal piano. The reason had nothing to do with the tuning, he said it had to do with how I played it after the tuning. I've always recognized immediately musicians who transcended technique. Shiva--Shakti.

[nooby]

The dilemma often seems to boil down to differences in how one personally defines "god". Semantics? Rhetorical differences? Mostly, it seems. We are all human, and most of us appear to experience emotions in quite a similar way. It's what our imagination does with 'em, where things can - and do - diverge. For better - or for worse...

Bob

Emotions are just nerves registering energy. How energy is registered and how it's used varies according to aptitude and individual development. Highly creative people, for example, generally have far more experience in what you may be referring to. Yesterday I concert tuned a Steinway, and after the tuning the conductor approached me, asking if I would tune his personal piano. The reason had nothing to do with the tuning, he said it had to do with how I played it after the tuning. I've always recognized immediately musicians who transcended technique. Shiva--Shakti.

I have moved on many years ago but I find it interesting how stuck
that you are using typical woo language like "Energy"

Are you really that much into fundy dogmas that you fail to see
how wrong it is to use the term -energy in the way you do here?

The energy you refer to only exist in the mind of the believer
of woo. Very much like believers in God trust that it is supernatural.

[jpeps]

I have moved on many years ago but I find it interesting how stuck
that you are using typical woo language like "Energy" .

Wrong..energy is exactly the correct term. There's nothing "woo-woo" about energy. Creative energy is something you have never experienced, so you'll have to talk with creative individuals who will tell you about it. Technically, energy is energy. Creative people are just able to use it to create things.

[ardvark]

Nevermind

[nooby]

I have moved on many years ago but I find it interesting how stuck
that you are using typical woo language like "Energy" .

Wrong..energy is exactly the correct term. There's nothing "woo-woo" about energy. Creative energy is something you have never experienced, so you'll have to talk with creative individuals who will tell you about it. Technically, energy is energy. Creative people are just able to use it to create things.

You and I have to disagree heavily on this.

The way you use the term energy here is pure woo.

No wonder I am so disappointed with Buddhists. They also
use language in this misleading way.

[musher0]

Hello, nooby.

I hope you are doing well enough and still have your spirits up given the
circumstance.

I thought of you while hearing an interview with Placide Gaboury (1928-1912)
http://placidegaboury.com/bibliographie.html
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placide_Gaboury
on our provincial TV network, Télé-Québec, a couple of days ago.I believe that his
works are available in French only, unfortunately.

He had this to say about the Aboriginal concept of religion. (My very free translated
summary): "My concept of religion was forever changed after I spent some time
among our Aboriginals. For them, religion is personal, non-formalized, as it
considers the relationship between the believer and all other beings, and with the
Source of Beings."

Perhaps this notion of the "Source of Beings" offers you more of a "handle"?
Just a thought.

Wishing you well.

musher0

[musher0]

Hello, again.

Here is another idea which was a revelation to me, struck me in the face,
actually, because this statement is so obvious, and I had been looking for a
plausible definition for such a long time...

"God is in the knowledge relationship between the subject and the object of
knowledge." (Read in a book by Paul Tillich.)

So... (to me, anyway) whatever this knowledge relationship may be: a student
studying geography, a singer singing a song, you having a conversation with a
friend, or re-discovering your wife's body while caressing her... God is in the
moment of that learning process. Even in the reading and writing of these posts...

To me, that was another "handle", in addition to the one above, a way for my poor
limited mind to imagine and understand God, or the Source of Being, or the Notion-
Beyond-All-Notions, or the Superior Power, or Whatever-HIs/Her/Its-Name-Is.

For you... well, you have to decide for yourself, to find your own handle, don't you?

BFN.

musher0

[nooby]

musher0 wrote
Hello, again.

Here is another idea which was a revelation to me, struck me in the face,
actually, because this statement is so obvious, and I had been looking for a
plausible definition for such a long time...

"God is in the knowledge relationship between the subject and the object of
knowledge." (Read in a book by Paul Tillich.)

So... (to me, anyway) whatever this knowledge relationship may be: a student
studying geography, a singer singing a song, you having a conversation with a
friend, or re-discovering your wife's body while caressing her... God is in the
moment of that learning process. Even in the reading and writing of these posts...

To me, that was another "handle", in addition to the one above, a way for my poor
limited mind to imagine and understand God, or the Source of Being, or the Notion-
Beyond-All-Notions, or the Superior Power, or Whatever-HIs/Her/Its-Name-Is.

For you... well, you have to decide for yourself, to find your own handle, don't you?

BFN.

musher0


That is a good find indeed.I tried it on some years ago too
but failed to find other seeing this to be useful

apart from friends of Tillich. Wieman had these views? IIRC
http://uudb.org/articles/henrynelsonwie ... D._Kaufman

[jpeps]

You and I have to disagree heavily on this.

The way you use the term energy here is pure woo.

No wonder I am so disappointed with Buddhists. They also
use language in this misleading way.

Yes, well you can't understand them because you don't yet know what your life is lacking. Creativity, inspiration, connectedness, purpose, direction, etc., etc. What you have is nooby, a complete boring fiction. There are many great teachers. You can't grasp any of them...and yet you feel superior in your misery.

[nooby]

musher0 thanks indeed for mentioning these guys.
I find them very interesting too. Sadly you
and I are the only persons caring about
their personal approaches to Theologies about God. ?

[musher0]

Hello, nooby.

Well, since I believe that my "handle" to God is a personal one, I am in a difficult position.
I cannot criticize the person who personally believes that his/her approach has to be
collective, or in reference to collective scriptures­. If I believe in the "personal handle"
approach, I cannot be a missionary for any collective approach. Shucks.

BFN.

musher0