Which god is God?

[SallyF]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

[dio9]

FYI God is not a concept concept holders cannot begin to get it. Concepts only separate God is one. AS Buddhist's say ; if you meet Buddha on the road , kill him. , so goes it for concepts of God. Any God we can imagine is not God. God is greater than we are able to imagine. Can a fish imagine the greatness of the ocean? Allegorically We are swimming in God.I dare say all the various versions of God people have are probably false. But make no mistake God exists.

Your claim:

• "God is greater than we are able to imagine."

Reveals that you too are a concept holder in spite of your protest against concept holders.


There is clear evidence that concepts of God exist. When it comes to God itself, all you can offer is an unsupported claim:

• "But make no mistake God exists."

Your claim supports SallyF's conclusion that:

• "Replies here - and everywhere else I've been - indicate that believers have nothing more than human writings and their personal beliefs to offer."

Tcg

Not exactly , saying the reality of God is outside a concepts box. beyond human understanding. I don't see how this is a concept . As I see it God can't be conceptualized. can give your thoughts on what a concept is?

[Tcg]

FYI God is not a concept concept holders cannot begin to get it. Concepts only separate God is one. AS Buddhist's say ; if you meet Buddha on the road , kill him. , so goes it for concepts of God. Any God we can imagine is not God. God is greater than we are able to imagine. Can a fish imagine the greatness of the ocean? Allegorically We are swimming in God.I dare say all the various versions of God people have are probably false. But make no mistake God exists.

Your claim:

• "God is greater than we are able to imagine."

Reveals that you too are a concept holder in spite of your protest against concept holders.


There is clear evidence that concepts of God exist. When it comes to God itself, all you can offer is an unsupported claim:

• "But make no mistake God exists."

Your claim supports SallyF's conclusion that:

• "Replies here - and everywhere else I've been - indicate that believers have nothing more than human writings and their personal beliefs to offer."

Tcg

Not exactly , saying the reality of God is outside a concepts box. beyond human understanding. I don't see how this is a concept . As I see it God can't be conceptualized. can give your thoughts on what a concept is?

"con·cept

/ˈkänˌsept/

noun

noun: concept; plural noun: concepts

an abstract idea; a general notion."


Beyond that, I've already provided you with an example of one:

• "God is greater than we are able to imagine."

This is one of YOUR concepts about God.


Here is another:

• "the reality of God is outside a concepts box."

Tcg

[SallyF]

Q: #220. How many Pagan/false gods does the Bible mention?
By: Steve Shirley
A: In my studies on this, I found 35 Pagan/false gods mentioned. It can be kind of confusing because some gods were the same but spelled differently in different places. Of the 35 I listed below, some may be the same as well, but I am pretty confident most are not. It is also interesting to note that most of the larger cities had numerous gods (polytheism). For example, the city of Athens had so many idols/gods (Acts 17:16), that they even made an idol "To The Unknown God" (Acts 17:23), just in case they missed any! (Paul used this opportunity to tell them about the one true God of all creation.) Below is my list:

http://jesusalive.cc/ques220.htm

Steve doesn't give us the objective criteria for determining that the gods on his list are false.

Like Christians the world over, he simply declares that the God concepts of cultures other than his own are false, based on nothing more than the very human writings of early Jewish culture.


It looks like sanctimonious Christian bigotry to me.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by SallyF]

My subjective determination is that ALL versions of "God" are equally false.

Thanks for letting us all know Sally.

What makes a 'version of GOD' you don't appear to have said.

Personally, my subjective understanding is that the Panentheist idea of GOD is the most likely. Could you explain to the reader why you think that version of GOD is false?

Because it has the identical absence of evidence to every other version of God.

Well that is your claim but I notice with claims like this, that no evidence to back the claim is ever offered.
Perhaps you will be the first to do so?

If you like, we can go head to head on this. At least 3 non-theists members so far have made similar claims about Panentheism but have not been willing to take their opinions into head 2 head with me. Perhaps you will be the first?

Please examine my absence of evidence in the three lines below:

1)

2)

2)

There you have it.

Okay so you have no evidence to support your claim. That is no surprise.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 44 by William]

Or you could simply choose to demonstrate that YOUR idea of God is something more than imaginary.

[Don McIntosh]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

Great question!

First, I think we need to understand that the appeal to cultural relativism is a non-starter. The existence of any number of alternatives does not weaken or falsify a true claim. Suppose you believe that evolution is a "fact of science" that no informed person could rationally dispute, or that there exists an external world independent of our perceptions and opinions. Quite a few highly educated philosophers and scientists would disagree on both counts. If relativism is correct, then, biological evolution and epistemological realism are false simply by virtue of other people believing contradicting alternatives (like intelligent design and idealism). But since people have disagreed about virtually every claim ever made, that would mean that every claim (even the claim that relativism is true) is probably false.

Second, we objectively determine, best we can, which version of God is true. By doing that, we determine which version is not false (and, assuming that version contradicts the alternatives, which versions are false). But how do we do that? Well, one way to begin is to critically examine our existing beliefs about the God in question. Are my beliefs coherent and relatively uncomplicated? Do they square with other aspects of reality as we have come to understand it? Do large numbers of rational, responsible people share those beliefs? If the answers there are yes, the prior probability of the God in question is relatively high. Then we explore the specific, relevant evidence. Is my particular belief such that the evidence (e.g. evidence for the resurrection of Jesus) is much more probable if my belief is true? If the resulting conjunction of the prior probability and explanatory power of the existence of the God in question is estimated to be greater than .5, then right away I can determine that the existence of any other god is less likely to be true.

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by SallyF]

Or you could simply choose to demonstrate that YOUR idea of God is something more than imaginary.

Your claim was this:

My subjective determination is that ALL versions of "God" are equally false.

I replied with;

Personally, my subjective understanding is that the Panentheist idea of GOD is the most likely. Could you explain to the reader why you think that version of GOD is false?

The reason for my Q was because you claimed that ALL versions of GOD are equally false.

Now it appears that your idea of Panentheism is that it is 'imaginary' and your idea of all things imaginary means such things are false.

I have adequately demonstrated on this message board, Panentheism's idea of GOD is not imaginary and also have successfully argued that imagination is not necessarily based upon falsehood.

Your assumptions otherwise, have lead you to make this ridiculous claim but - you made the claim - it is up to you to show the reader why Panentheism is - in your subjective determination - false. Trying to drop the ball in my court on that one, is a fallacy.

Give it your best shot.

As I said, I am even happy to go Head to Head with you on this. Put your money where your mouth is.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 47 by William]

I have adequately demonstrated on this message board, Panentheism's idea of GOD is not imaginary and also have successfully argued that imagination is not necessarily based upon falsehood.

Goodness me … I've obviously missed that …!


If you wouldn't mind sending me a PM directing me to your adequate demonstration, I'd love to read it.


And if indeed you have demonstrated that your idea of God exists anywhere outside you imagination, and I (and others) can independently verify the evidence, I will certainly concede my assertion.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 46 by Don McIntosh]

Is my particular belief such that the evidence (e.g. evidence for the resurrection of Jesus) is much more probable if my belief is true?

That makes very little sense as written.


And we are still only talking about belief. You have offered nothing outside your own head that can be examined independently.


And I suggest the notion of "probability" should not come into the determination of "God".

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 2 by Mithrae]

it's important to note that in most cases in the sciences, philosophy, politics, economics, history and so on we do not actually determine that something is true

When it comes to "God", however, I suggest it's a good idea to make sure the one you pin your Eternity on IS indeed "true".


Otherwise, you know, you'll just make the right one madder and madder.