god is the "supreme reality" "a being which trancends this bodily world and all it contains"
By definition, god exists What we here are arguing, is the nature of this god Is it simply a eternal cosmic force of some kind, or something more? That, my friends, is the question, and it is one which cannot be proven with experiments or data. It is one which must be discovered by searching, and the proof cannot be expressed in words. I cannot explain how I know That God exists in the form of Christ, I just Know.
" I beleive in christianity as I beleive the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but also because by it I see everything else" - C.S. Lewis
there must be a common definition, weather we get it from the dictionary or not. how can we argue about something if we are talking about two different things?
For many God is defined n many ways no doubt bout that. God xists n the minds of those who give imagination its place n the world. Unlike God Jesus Christ falls under many religions especially Christianity. God? Who knows where he may b? Who knows what religion he is? Its kinda funny watching/listening to ppl twist God/Jesus Christ, just this hole religion around. That also reminds me of sumthing the "dictionary" & its define look on God. Look @ it like this step 1-the dictionary is a book. step 2-the book was made by ppl like you & I. Its not such a good idea to take on another persons word of sumthing if they dont know themself. Thats it for now so very tired cant keep awake ttyl! Bad Boy 4 Life, BIGG D.
like I said, If you don't accept the dictionary's primary definition of god then this discussion will go nowhere. There can be no discussion if the meaning of the terms used in the discussion are not agreed upon.
P.s. people who beleive in santa are generally at the age where they don't care about the definition or anything else as long as they get what they want for christmas
1. "santa claus is a being that some consider as a gift giver at the time of christmas."
2. "the gift giver at the time of christmas."
as i do not believe in santa claus, i find the 1st definition to be more accurate. someone who believes in santa claus would probably use the 2nd definition. they are both correct definitions - it depends on your belief. nice try with the circle example though.
...Broca's Brain by Carl Sagon, great book...at the end he presents some very interesting theories on the origin of religion, ones i had never heard before. Definately worth reading...makes you reconsider things..that is if you're open to new ideas.
well, I guess their can be no discussion if some people don't accept the definition of the terms being used. Saying god is " A being some view as the supreme reality" is like saying " a circle is a shape some view as being round".
you logic is faulty due to biased assumptions that many atheists do not make (because we make our own biased assumptions). i do not accept "god is the supreme reality" as a factual definition; my definition of reality is not consistent with your anthropomorphic insistence that reality takes direction from a being with human attributes. my definition of god would run more to the tune of: "a being that some view as the supreme reality."
to me, reality is reality. indeed, i am not sure if there only is one reality; current physics (at least the articles that i read) hold that at least 12 dimensions exist (anyone with a grasp on string theory may chime in here regarding the possible connections between light particle/wave patterns and gravity-general relativity laws suggesting that perhaps there is only one dimension). regardless, i do not equate my reality with a god because i believe that reality may exist without a god. i hold reason and logic as supreme and my being atheist does not create personal conflict with those values. i view life as a state of existance governed by physically determined probabilities - if you think that this meets your definition of god then to you i am not a true atheist, but my definition of god is not inclusive of this view and therefore i view myself as a true atheist.
if you view atheism and religion as simply a semantic spectrum then, sure, you could argue that one view is really an overlapping extreme of the other. however, the way i choose to view my beliefs and that of a god-believing religion are as 2 distinct entities: if you do not believe in the existence of a god, then, by definition, you are an atheist. this does not exclude a belief that reality exists. after all, "A is A" (shameless atlas shrugged plug) - that's my reality. "A is A and God is A" - that's your reality. two distinct entities.
although i appreciate your logic, i do not accept it as logical for me because its basic premise fails to meet my expectation for factual acceptance.
god is the "supreme reality" this is the definition of god.
now, I doubt there exists any true atheists, since to be a true atheist you must deny that thier is a "Supreme Reality" If thier is no supreme reality, then thier can be no reality at all. If thier is only one level of reality, then that level is the supreme reality. So True Atheism is ,by definition, impossible,. It is Impossible for a sane man to think nothing is real. thus, "god" Exists in one form or another. This is not debatable. what IS debatable is the nature of god.
smith wigglesworth was a very spiritual man. i don't know exactly when he died, but it wasn't many decades ago. he was about as close to a common day jesus as anyone could find. he raised people from the dead with the power of god. even his own wife... (mind you, this is a true story)... anywho, he once was asked how long his prayers were, and this was his answer: "i usually don't spend more than a half hour in prayer, but i never go a half hour without praying." he was showing the world that prayer is much more than just conversation with god. it's an attitude, just as worship is a lifestyle. i'll try to get more info on him and noisemail it to you. god bless, snood
ok... i have to agree with bob on this one. though some may not see god, does not mean some of us don't. like c.s. lewis said, "i believe in god not only because i can see him, but because by him, i see everything else."
personally, i had to be convinced through miracles and whatnot to become a true believer. and jookly, you are right about some of those things. if you feed everyone the same stuff, they will all have the same delusion. unfortunately that arguement works just as well toward athiests. as does your comment, "40 people would testify to seeing christ alive today if you found the right 40." 40 would say christ isn't alive in us today if you found the right 40. i doubt i have to explain that further. i know you get my point by now.
just one last thing for you jookly. i know you don't believe in god or christ or anything like that, because you are an atheist. this thread is for people who believe in god or christ to debate what/who he is and what he does. if you don't have anything enlightening to say of the topic, this probably isn't the best place to discuss it with you.
bob... here's my take on the situation. god created the universe and everything within, including us. he was betrayed, thus mortality plagues us today. lotta details in the middle... ... ... then came christ. i love this. christ came as the physical form of the son of god. he came pure and holy and stayed that way. he died for our sins, washed those who are willing clean, and rose again from the dead to make his heavenly ascent only to live forever more. the one thing that makes christ so unique other than his absolute purity, isn't the fact that he rose from the dead... several people in the bible did... and have you ever heard of smith wigglesworth? the uniqueness is in the fact that he died once, but rose again and didn't circum to death a second time. i believe that if we are willing to accept and serve him and love him with all of our heart, soul, body, mind, and strenght, he will live in us until the day we die... then we will live face to face with him in all of his glory. what else can i say? as the song goes, "my savior, my closest friend..." that's what god/jesus is to me. god bless, snoop
quote:because if something is imaginary, there is no evidence to support it. Millions of people all around the world could not all be having the same delusion.
why not, if they have all been fed the same bull**** they will all have the same delusion.
quote: people wouldn't die for something that didn't have a solid foundation.
(assuming that you mean in a war) they certainly would, many people are forced into wars.(if you dont mean wars) people die overy day.
quote: Through the ages there have been innumerible accounts of miracles- more than 40 people testified to seeing jesus alive after his crucifiction.
40 people would testify to seeing him alive today if you found the right 40.
Im not really sure what this thread is supposed to be debating. If you want to discuss the definition of god this probably isnt the place to do it, as we like to deal with current event issues here.
because if something is imaginary, there is no evidence to support it. Millions of people all around the world could not all be having the same delusion. people wouldn't die for something that didn't have a solid foundation. Through the ages there have been innumerible accounts of miracles- more than 40 people testified to seeing jesus alive after his crucifiction. Santa Clause and the boogy man just don't have that kind of support Jookly.
Topics 
