God is real... in the mind only.

[playhavock]

In here, I will forward my theory that God is real in the mind only, giving reason that we should conclude this is true.

I will refer to "God" as (G) for this theory, as God could also be taken to be Gods/god/gods.

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

[Tex]

In here, I will forward my theory that God is real in the mind only, giving reason that we should conclude this is true.

I will refer to "God" as (G) for this theory, as God could also be taken to be Gods/god/gods.

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

Tex: So now what? Drink be happy and hopefully you die in a long while.

[Jax Agnesson]

I agree with Tex.
How weird is that?

[kayky]

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

This argument makes no sense. The reality of something does not depend on the human ability to define or understand it. It either exists or does not exist--regardless of human concepts about it.

[playhavock]

This argument makes no sense. The reality of something does not depend on the human ability to define or understand it. It either exists or does not exist--regardless of human concepts about it.

If we can not understand it, we can still define it to some sort of degree - could we not? I do not understand - for example quantum phyiscs, but I can still define it.
Can you name any example of something you can not define that is still real? Can you give an example of something you can not understand and also not define?

Does (G) exist - in the mind, clearly it does. As a universal idea. It can not be shown to be a particalar, thus it must exist only in the mind.

No idea about "Tex" or why drinking has anything to do with anything else. It does not follow.

[Jax Agnesson]

No idea about "Tex" or why drinking has anything to do with anything else. It does not follow.

It does for me!
It's a sunny Saturday afternoon here in Cardiff, after days of pissing rain.
Someone (another one!) thinks he's proved that God either does or doesn't exist.
I've got a nice bottle of South African red, and a clean glass.
Cheers!
PS kayky is right.

[Flail]

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

This argument makes no sense. The reality of something does not depend on the human ability to define or understand it. It either exists or does not exist--regardless of human concepts about it.

So true...and yet we insist on believing in unevidenced, unreasoned concepts regardless...as if they were somehow true... .that's odd.

[kayky]

If we can not understand it, we can still define it to some sort of degree - could we not? I do not understand - for example quantum phyiscs, but I can still define it.
Can you name any example of something you can not define that is still real? Can you give an example of something you can not understand and also not define?

We do define it to "some sort of degree.". Otherwise we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The fact that people tend to define it according to their own experience and culture makes no difference. I agree with the Buddhist concept of "beginner's mind" or what Jesus referred to as becoming like a little child. The fastest path to a transformative experience of God is to give up all concepts about God.

Does (G) exist - in the mind, clearly it does. As a universal idea. It can not be shown to be a particalar, thus it must exist only in the mind.

It is not clear at all. This argument is nonsensical.

[bernee51]

If we can not understand it, we can still define it to some sort of degree - could we not? I do not understand - for example quantum phyiscs, but I can still define it.
Can you name any example of something you can not define that is still real? Can you give an example of something you can not understand and also not define?

We do define it to "some sort of degree.". Otherwise we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The fact that people tend to define it according to their own experience and culture makes no difference. I agree with the Buddhist concept of "beginner's mind" or what Jesus referred to as becoming like a little child. The fastest path to a transformative experience of God is to give up all concepts about God.

Or IOW, in order to find god, first you have to lose god.

Does (G) exist - in the mind, clearly it does. As a universal idea. It can not be shown to be a particalar, thus it must exist only in the mind.

It is not clear at all. This argument is nonsensical.

The concept of god exists only in the mind...it is a thought...so to that extent, the concept of god, the argument is sound.

Whether a particular concept reflects an extant reality cannot be known.

[bernee51]

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

This argument makes no sense. The reality of something does not depend on the human ability to define or understand it. It either exists or does not exist--regardless of human concepts about it.

I should read threads from the top, rather than the bottom...and then respond.


The reality of a particular 'something' depends very much on human ability to define it...

To her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an ascetic she may be a distraction and to wolf a good meal.

Sure the atoms and molecules that make up the physical representation of an object are independent of out minds, however, we very much create reality of the object in our mind.

If there are no 'atoms and molecules' representing 'god', is it not very much only a concept.