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.

[Flail]

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.

The OP speaks to the glaringly obvious....'God' depends entirely upon and exists only within the mind of the believer....which is why 'God' is unable to cross some borders...2 plus 2 and gravity is the same in the US and Iran, but God is entirely different.

[Flail]

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.

The OP speaks to the glaringly obvious....'God' depends entirely upon and exists only within the mind of the believer....which is why 'God' is unable to cross some borders...2 plus 2 and gravity are the same in the US and Iran, but God is entirely different.

[playhavock]

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.

I'm not sure what "South African red" is other then I can infer that it is most likely a drink containing achool - to what degre I am unsure. We offen find sun a welcome after a time of much rain and/or darkness and visa versa we find rain a welcome after a long time of sun and/or heat. Cleanless in a glass is inporant to us because we do not want germs and virus's to enter us (they will regardless) but having a clean glass gives us emotional confert. So the two conjoined things - emotional confert with the sun and emotional confert of the clean glass plus the effect that achool has on the brain will probley produce a quite relaxed and emotional feeling of happyness and/or joy. (however too much achool might ruin the effect)

Now, mixed in this is the idea that I am brining forward an idea that eather proves or disproves (G) - and this is seen by this person as perhaps a negitve, or a postive, or more of the same - and they would much rather relax (one suposes) and injoy the good time rather then actualy think about such issues, one must wonder, why they bother to be on the fourm if they have a nice day/evening planed for themselfs. One must be pressed to ask - what does having a good time (or trying to) have anything to do with the topic? Of course - the answer is nothing - other then to say, "sure I could join in and think, but I'd rather relax." but why do this - why bother posting when one would have more time to have a good time? Ah - the answer here comes from our need for community and appreation or precived appreation of others - someone mentioned achool and having a good time - I too want to have a good time and injoy my achool - but I want them to know that I am doing this! So they post that this is the case, now - we might ask why the FIRST person did this - good question - because they wanted to share with there community (us) that they are having fun, perhaps to say "not to worry" - if this is to agree or disagre with my points, it is unclear - for they are disengaging in the conversation at hand, but we can fathem using phycoligy some of the basic reasions why they are doing this.

Why is any of this inproant to talk about and bring forward? Because I want to highlight that whenever someone disengages by posting that they are disengaging they are engaging to disengage - they are looking for others to do the same and feel a sence of community. They are saying "I dont have anything to add, but I'm having fun, I'm going to post that I'm adding nothing and having fun." we can understand this, and our mystery of why they bother to post at all disapates - we objectly see that they add nothing to the talk at hand, they are tangenting into nothingness as they are doing what we humans do best- being socal, just not in the way the others in the topic are doing.

So, what is our responce? Well, on one level it is to remind those who are engaged that these few that disengage are doing so to engage - with each other - and not us that want to talk about the topic itself, rather then having a good time (or trying to have a good time) I myself am drinking a Cocacola with ice in it - actualy I am not activly drinking it - it is in a cup to the left of my laptop in McD's (where I can access the internet today) now, eventualy I will (one suposes) take a drink from it and consume it, and to anyone that has drank such a drink they can easly immagen themself in this mode and so can connect to me in this way. But, this does nothing to foward my orginal point. OR DOES IT?

Ah, actualy it does - "soda" is a universal - "soda" does not exist in the real world as it is a consept to discribe a catagory of things - only a patular soda - in this case Cocacola exists - I offen call it cola since it could be pepsi or a non-brand name with simular flavor. We can all know what I am refering to if I just said "I am drinking soda" And more so we can all know what I meen when I say "I am drinking cola" and even more if I name a brand that one reconises (cocacola) if I said "I'm drinking Publix brank Cola" and you did not know about Publix (it is a store located in Fl) then you might not know that bit about what Publix is - but could infer that it is a store with the ablity to make its own brand of sodas so is large, and you can understand what I am refering to. Because I am using paturlars and universals - some exist in the mind only - and some exist in real life - and we know, almost intutivly - the difernace.

*takes a drink of my soda*

Ahh. Refreshing. Not really. Its a bit watered down. Ah well, its cold. And I am hot (being in FL) *drinks more* now - can you immagen this - perhaps it is making you thirsty - this is because we connect emotionaly to words we see.

Universals are in the mind only. Patulars exist out here - in the real world. I thank you for your disconsct post that I could analise to connect to the facts about the world. I hope you will rengae with the topic at hand. I do not know that you will.

Now then, I desire to place more cola into my drink to try to get it less watered down (too much ice or the machines give to much carbation) so I will post this and await to see the other responces.

[kayky]

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

No. You have let go of your preconceptions about God before the actuality of God can present itself. If you want to fill a cup with one substance, it must first be empty of all other substances.

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.

But God isn't just a concept.

[Flail]

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

No. You have let go of your preconceptions about God before the actuality of God can present itself. If you want to fill a cup with one substance, it must first be empty of all other substances.

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.

But God isn't just a concept.

God as an extant supernatural being is, so far as we can possibly discern or verify, most certainly a concept. Indoctrination can and often does create a 'God' in the mind of the believer to such an extent that God seems real to them, but such emotions have nothing whatever do do with existence. As indoctrinations vary, so does God. The only consistency in God comes with group think believers who share identical indoctrinations processes. So God just 'depends', and can never be consistent, verified or tested and is nothing other than a mental image engendered by religious promotion.

Compare gravity; gravity exists and operates independently of what we think about it, or whether we think about it. A rock falls from a precipice by the same process in Iran as in Indiana; but the God concepts in each location differ. What makes the gods dissimilar is differing indoctrinations, and indoctrination is indeed a mental, emotional process that creates contingent Gods.

[kayky]

God as an extant supernatural being is, so far as we can possibly discern or verify, most certainly a concept.

I agree. The transcendence of God is a mystery to us and cannot be known by us. But the aspect of God that actually IS nature is not "supernatural" at all. It can be experienced and known by us and, therefore, is not merely a concept

Indoctrination can and often does create a 'God' in the mind of the believer to such an extent that God seems real to them, but such emotions have nothing whatever do do with existence. As indoctrinations vary, so does God. The only consistency in God comes with group think believers who share identical indoctrinations processes. So God just 'depends', and can never be consistent, verified or tested and is nothing other than a mental image engendered by religious promotion.

As a child I was indoctrinated into a very fundamentalist view of God, so I know what you mean. Obviously that indoctrination doesn't always stick. My experience of God tells me only two things: God is love, and I am a part of who God is. If I tried to say more, for example what powers God has or God's view of morality or whatever, I would either be engaging in speculation or spouting what my Sunday school teacher told me or what I read in a book.

Compare gravity; gravity exists and operates independently of what we think about it, or whether we think about it. A rock falls from a precipice by the same process in Iran as in Indiana; but the God concepts in each location differ. What makes the gods dissimilar is differing indoctrinations, and indoctrination is indeed a mental, emotional process that creates contingent Gods.

Such religious notions have nothing to do with the actuality of God

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

No. You have let go of your preconceptions about God before the actuality of God can present itself. If you want to fill a cup with one substance, it must first be empty of all other substances.

But ya still need something if that cup's gonna get filled.

[Flail]

God as an extant supernatural being is, so far as we can possibly discern or verify, most certainly a concept.

I agree. The transcendence of God is a mystery to us and cannot be known by us. But the aspect of God that actually IS nature is not "supernatural" at all. It can be experienced and known by us and, therefore, is not merely a concept

Indoctrination can and often does create a 'God' in the mind of the believer to such an extent that God seems real to them, but such emotions have nothing whatever do do with existence. As indoctrinations vary, so does God. The only consistency in God comes with group think believers who share identical indoctrinations processes. So God just 'depends', and can never be consistent, verified or tested and is nothing other than a mental image engendered by religious promotion.

As a child I was indoctrinated into a very fundamentalist view of God, so I know what you mean. Obviously that indoctrination doesn't always stick. My experience of God tells me only two things: God is love, and I am a part of who God is. If I tried to say more, for example what powers God has or God's view of morality or whatever, I would either be engaging in speculation or spouting what my Sunday school teacher told me or what I read in a book.

Compare gravity; gravity exists and operates independently of what we think about it, or whether we think about it. A rock falls from a precipice by the same process in Iran as in Indiana; but the God concepts in each location differ. What makes the gods dissimilar is differing indoctrinations, and indoctrination is indeed a mental, emotional process that creates contingent Gods.

Such religious notions have nothing to do with the actuality of God

Nor do they have to do 'God's non-actuality, or with anything at all 'about' God; all religious ideas assume too much when it comes to God, down to the very definition of the thing itself.

In fact, doesn't religion presuppose and assume EVERYTHING when it comes to 'God'? Name one solitary thing we do not presuppose when we talk about God. We can't even meaningfully discuss the existence/non-existence or characteristics of 'God' without making basic assumptions. And then some of us have the audacity to go so far as to presuppose what their 'God' would have us do, and who to judge and who is saved, and call it 'truth'.

So we call 'God' love or nature and then claim to know that God exists because love and nature exist. You can't get much more dizzyingly circular than that.

[kayky]

From Post 14:

But ya still need something if that cup's gonna get filled.

Very true. That's why I believe in God.

[kayky]

Nor do they have to do 'God's non-actuality, or with anything at all 'about' God; all religious ideas assume too much when it comes to God, down to the very definition of the thing itself.

I think it depends on how the religion is approached. For the majority of people I think this probably is the case. But I also know from study that most of the world's greatest religions have wiithin them a mystical tradition. There are the Sufis in Islam, for example. There is the Kabala in Judaism. Christianity has its mystics as well. These are people who craved and found a deeper understanding of their religious practice and an actual experience of God.

In fact, doesn't religion presuppose and assume EVERYTHING when it comes to 'God'? Name one solitary thing we do not presuppose when we talk about God. We can't even meaningfully discuss the existence/non-existence or characteristics of 'God' without making basic assumptions. And then some of us have the audacity to go so far as to presuppose what their 'God' would have us do, and who to judge and who is saved, and call it 'truth'.

A great deal of religious people are like this. It has led to a great deal of misery in the world.

So we call 'God' love or nature and then claim to know that God exists because love and nature exist. You can't get much more dizzyingly circular than that.

LOL. I suppose it does sound that way. But my claim is not based on these facts. It is based on a disciplined practice in seeking a God experience and actually having a God experience.