Vinterland

I refer to God as is commonly defined as the supernatural entity that transcends the universe.

Since omnipotence is defined as all power, it is inclusive of the other qualities attributed to God such as omniscient. The paradoxes of an entity possessing such qualities have been highlighted for years now, but if anyone is unaware I will briefly explain it as best I can. God is all powerful meaning that It has the capability to be simultaenously all powerful and not all powerful for if it was incapable of doing both, then it would not be all powerful as it is bound by something. The useful tool that is logic cannot rationalise or justify God in any way, so I ask, how is any theological discussion about the God that is 'out there' (as Og said) productive to the science based atheist that knows God cannot be currently indentified by humans?

I find my interest in theology waning constantly and would like to stop spending time about 'God'. I request that you make your replies as free of technical language as possible. Thanks.

Og

A person's God is the one they're capable of having. Understand a person's god and a person's demons as they relate them and you understand who they are as a person. That's the point of the 'God that is out there' comment.

This is the essence of Jung's work. Pantheons of gods represent who and what you are and what you are capable of. Get a truthful answer about someone's god and you have an understanding of who they are and how to interact with them.

It's much like avatars in online games or in that most recent movie "The Golden Compass" where demons (souls) walked along side humans. Know the demon and you know the person.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Vinterland

Do you accept the dichotomy of the classical definition of God and the gods that are within a person and represent what one is about? Because i infer that you are speaking of God as a naturalistic tangible thing that can be logically explained whereas a traditional God is uncorporeal since it is supernatural and our logic cannot identify it.

Og

Supernatural is a null word. Logic is not an entity that can be transcended, it is not bound. Supernatural makes absolutely zero sense as a term. It is literally gibberish. If a thing has existence, it is, by definition, natural. Natural is another term that can not be transcended. It doesn't make sense to speak of transcending either nature or logic.. This is not a LIMITING thing (as some people would say "beyond logic" or whatever). By definition, these terms are unbounded.

Magic and supernatural are gibberish words in the english language when applied to religion. They represent a cop-out path that people can use to live with logical schism in their mind.

If they term their God as supernatural, it generally means that the person is not very self aware (i.e. only deals with surface phenomena in their lives and doesn't look too deeply at their motivations).

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Vinterland

Logic can only address those questions that are measurable against something else because a scale of value is needed; otherwise it is useless, or depending on perspective, that unmeasurable question is useless. It is the inherent tool we and other animals use to organise and make sense of things.

Supernaturalism does not make sense to you or I; but the illogic of it does not speak to its validity. I've not said that supernaturalism 'transcends' reason; only that logic is usually not successfully applied to God as there is no real data to work with. You see, I agree that God is logical, but because what is labeled as 'supernatural' is illogical, I see three possibilities: we do not have the information, we have made an err in our reasoning, or it does not exist. Claiming that God exists only as a reflection of human mind is illogical; you've made an error and a conclusion without any evidence to support your denial in the supernatural.

I'm willing to bet humans only know a minute fraction about the universe and it is arrogant for some to presume they are logically capable of determing if there is a God when their use of logic is unsuccessful due to lack of data.

I do not know where you bring this argument about bring illogical invalidates existence. Perhaps you could help by referncing to an article.

Geshtinnanna

Non tech speak: I enjoy (at times) discussing religion with a person of (insert your faith du jour). For me, it's not about debate of right or wrong etc. It's more about getting to know about a person on how they believe as opposed to what they believe. Take Lecter and I. We both are of completely opposite faiths. Though we go about our faith in pretty much the same fundamental way. I like discussing religion because it tells me alot about how people work their thought processes. It's interesting for me.

__________________

Jacob

I know from reading some of your other posts that you profess to be an atheist. What does an atheist have faith in? This is a genuine question and it is not meant to be a slam on your philosophy. I am curious to how you'll respond.

Jacob

__________________


Religions, movements and even nations
are constructs invented by humans.

They only take on meaning
if humanity chooses to accept them.

marmalade

Not to answer for Gesh, I have faith in faith. This means that faith is an experience to me and not a belief in something particular. For instance, I have faith that all faiths are pointing towards similar experiences even though its unclear exactly what this is. And, in fact, my faith is the stronger because of this lack of certainty.

If I knew anything with absolute certainty, then faith wouldn't be necessary.
If I believed in anything with absolute certainty, then faith wouldn't be necessary.

Faith goes where knowledge and belief can't. Or maybe faith is that which can transform knowledge and belief into living experience. Everything begins with faith, but its just a matter of what we put faith into. Even science must begin with assumptions that can't be proven scientifically. This isn't a weakness of science. This is a fact of the human psyche.

I put faith into all kinds of things, but I try to remember that faith precedes what we place it in. To imperfectly translate this into scientific terms, observation should precede theory.

Geshtinnanna

I can't speak for other Atheists. I can speak for myself. I actually just replied to a thread like this on another forum. I have no faith. As someone with a mental illness I recognize my limitations in faith. If I were to say I have faith, it would be in myself. That I can judge 100% correctly. I have proof of myself and experience with myself. Everything else is up for chance and doubt of some form or another. Plus once you have been severely abused as a child, you tend to view things very differently. As a child, my budding faith was taken from me and has never returned.

__________________

marmalade

I find it interesting how most people associate faith with belief and certainty. You say you have faith in yourself which I translate as you trust yourself. Trust also relates to belief and certainty. And so related with this are mistrust, doubt, and uncertainty(or chance as you said it).

To me, none of that has to do with it for faith isn't a psychological trait. I'm filled with mistrust, doubt, and uncertainty. And, yet, I have a sense of faith. As far as I can tell, faith is what is left after mistrust, doubt, and uncertainty have replaced all your hopes and assumptions. I'd say that faith is only possible to the degree that its been challenged and only when its become unmoored from any certainty(individual or collective).

I may have a fair amount of mental illness, but(as far as I know) I was never abused as a child. However, I do feel like a very wounded person, and I've come to associate my sense of faith with my woundedness. If I hadn't spent most of my life mired in depression and suicidal at times, then I wouldn't have had the experiences I had that my faith is based upon.

Obviously your experiences are quite different. It seems like faith can mean anything and everything. Faith latches onto whatever catches our imagination and for you issues of trust seem to be what are the fodder for your 'faith'.

Have you ever read any of the depth psychologists such as Hillman?