What do you REALLY believe?

[hooplala]

i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:

Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.

I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You're all going to burn in hell. 

HELL, DO YUO HEAR ME?

[Cramulus]

i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:

Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.

I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.

depends entirely on how you slice it


if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."

[hooplala]

i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:

Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.

I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.

depends entirely on how you slice it


if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."

I think the omniscience would be reason enough to consider it a god.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

That's a funny image. Like someone going to Church to thank God for the prayer he answered, and then going, "that weird space thing creeps me out"
And conversely the atheist addressing it for a favor but denying that they have a religion or accept the existence of a deity.

[Cramulus]

i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:

Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.

I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.

depends entirely on how you slice it


if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."

I think the omniscience would be reason enough to consider it a god.

not for everybody

this invisible space entity wouldn't match a lot of people's preexisting definition of god, so they'd say "nah that's not it"

from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts, than to think of god as some separate, external entity.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Well I just have a hard time believing in a God who exists separately from "creation" because whatever separates God from creation would necessarily be more powerful than God; any scenario that accounts for there being a distinct "God" and a distinct "Creation" would be a reality that is itself larger and more true in essence than whatever God lived inside of it, therefore negating its God-ness.

If I am pressed to describe things like that, I tend to "believe" (if that's the right word) in a God that is not any specific entity or consciousness but rather whatever reality allows everything to exist, or whatever system of maths or other such rules that allows reality to exist the way it does. You're right that it amounts to there effectively being no god at all, except that to believe there is a proper system in place that can account for everything, is to believe there may be proper actions for you to take that is in line with the way that system wants things to behave, rather than going the "wrong" way and forcing the system to compensate for your stupidity.

It's all vanity, and I realize and accept that, it just works for me.

[LMNO]

from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...

Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?

The map would literally be the territory.  Why call it anything other than it is?

[hooplala]

i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:

Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.

I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.

depends entirely on how you slice it


if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."

I think the omniscience would be reason enough to consider it a god.

not for everybody

this invisible space entity wouldn't match a lot of people's preexisting definition of god, so they'd say "nah that's not it"

from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts, than to think of god as some separate, external entity.

I was only speaking for me.  I wouldn't consider that god.

Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter?  If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Woe to the non-believer, for he shall spend eternity in a Richard Dawkins fan forum, yea even Veganza."
- Hyperclessians 12:2

[Cramulus]

from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...

Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?

The map would literally be the territory.  Why call it anything other than it is?

yes in part, and that's why I don't say I believe in God

the word "universe", in of itself, doesn't resonate with my idea, it's too reductionary



and saying something like "metaphorical entity consisting of the structural similarities which run from the micro to the macro" is a bit of a mouthful



I would prefer the word Cosmos, except that it has connotations of Order, and the word Chaos, except that it has connotations of Disorder. So something in between there I guess :P

Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter?  If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.

kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"

my microreligion of the month posits that one can lead a better life by observing and resonating with the universe's natural motion and recurring patterns - or God - depending on what you want to call it






EDIT TO ADD: the idea that god may "intervene" is not compatible with my worldview of the month. To me that sounds like asking a book to intervene in its own plot.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...

Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?

The map would literally be the territory.  Why call it anything other than it is?

yes in part, and that's why I don't say I believe in God

the word "universe", in of itself, doesn't resonate with my idea, it's too reductionary



and saying something like "metaphorical entity consisting of the structural similarities which run from the micro to the macro" is a bit of a mouthful



I would prefer the word Cosmos, except that it has connotations of Order, and the word Chaos, except that it has connotations of Disorder. So something in between there I guess :P

Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter?  If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.

kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"

my microreligion of the month posits that one can lead a better life by observing and resonating with the universe's natural motion and recurring patterns - or God - depending on what you want to call it






EDIT TO ADD: the idea that god may "intervene" is not compatible with my worldview of the month. To me that sounds like asking a book to intervene in its own plot.

CHAMOS

LORD OF THIS AND THAT

[hooplala]

Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter?  If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.

kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"

Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.

It would be like this:  say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all.  What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all?  From my view, there would be no difference.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter?  If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.

kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"

Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.

It would be like this:  say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all.  What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all?  From my view, there would be no difference.

Maybe God's just being nice for once.  I mean, do you really want the Old Testament God stomping around again?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

If you identify "God" as "something that has lots of special powers and intervenes in events," and then "God" doesn't do that, then yeah that's the same as having no God. But if you define "God" as something that has nothing to do with intervention or super powers, then your argument doesn't really apply.