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?

[Zzyzx]

.

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".

Thousands of 'gods' to choose from and every believer seems totally convinced that they have magically chosen the right one -- and that their favorite is 'real' while all others are 'false'.

Quite a feat. Do they not realize that had they been born in a different area of the world, a different society, and/or at a different time, they would worship different gods just as fervently as they worship their current choice?

Most also seem convinced that the 'gods' require worship (because someone said so).

[William]

Claim made by SallyF: My subjective determination is that ALL versions of "God" are equally false.

William: 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?

SallyF: Goodness me … I've obviously missed that …!

William: That is quite understandable. Life can be busy and full of distractions.
It has been brought to your attention and it is up to you how you deal with that.
Could you explain to the reader why you think the Panentheist idea of GOD is false?

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

William: Are you saying that you missed the links I publicly gave you already? Attention to detail is important - especially when making claims of subjective determination Sally F.
If one is far too busy to attend to the details, perhaps a debate setting is not somewhere one should be flaunting one's incompetence...

SallyF: 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.

William: As I said, I am even happy to go Head to Head with you on this. You made the claim. If one is unable to justify any claim one makes, then the honorable thing for one to do is withdraw the claim as unsubstantiated.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 52 by William]

William: Are you saying that you missed the links I publicly gave you already? Attention to detail is important - especially when making claims of subjective determination Sally F.
If one is far too busy to attend to the details, perhaps a debate setting is not somewhere one should be flaunting one's incompetence...

Perhaps it's my incompetence, or perhaps I don't devote a lot of time to my missionary work, but I couldn't find a single link you have given us in this thread to demonstrate that your idea of "God" exists anywhere other than in your imagination …?

And if your idea of "God" can't be demonstrated as anything more than imaginary, then it's equally as false (or true) as anyone else's idea of "God".

[otseng]

perhaps a debate setting is not somewhere one should be flaunting one's incompetence...

Moderator Comment

Please avoid the indirect attack on others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

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

William: 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?


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

William: 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?


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

1)

2)

2)

There you have it.

William: Okay so you have no evidence to support your claim.


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

William: 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.

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.

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.


SallyF: Goodness me … I've obviously missed that …!

William: That is quite understandable. Life can be busy and full of distractions.
It has been brought to your attention and it is up to you how you deal with that.
Could you explain to the reader why you think the Panentheist idea of GOD is false?

SallyF: Perhaps it's my incompetence,

William: Please forgive my indirect dig re 'incompetence' - it was uncalled for on my part. I apologize and as an act of sincere contrition for my misdeed, have unloaded all tokens I currently have, paying a voluntary fine into moderator otseng's account.



SallyF: I couldn't find a single link you have given us in this thread to demonstrate that your idea of "God" exists anywhere other than in your imagination …?

William: You misunderstood me. I publicly give the reader links to my Members Notes frequently. "I have adequately demonstrated on this message board" was what I wrote.
It may be that you have missed these in other threads where we have interacted. If you are willing to debate with me regarding the issue in a head to head, I can provide as many links as necessary to the interaction.


SallyF: And if your idea of "God" can't be demonstrated as anything more than imaginary, then it's equally as false (or true) as anyone else's idea of "God".

William: It appears you have changed your wording to include the words "or true" which were missing from your original claim in the OP.
I am happy to go along with that change of mind on your part.
As far as your opinion regarding imagination goes, it appears to be a standardized cop-out used frequently enough by non-theists to sweepingly dismiss theism with a simply wave of the hand.
As such, I will understand perfectly if you cannot bear the thought of head to head with anyone you publicly regard as imagining GODs. The derision non-theists intend in that type of expression of opinion, is noted.

[Zzyzx]

.

As far as your opinion regarding imagination goes, it appears to be a standardized cop-out used frequently enough by non-theists to sweepingly dismiss theism with a simply wave of the hand.

ANY of the thousands of 'gods' proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans MAY be real -- awaiting verifiable evidence which, if any, are more than products of human imagination.

What question, specifically, would you propose to debate in H2H with a Non-Theist?

[William]

William: As far as your opinion regarding imagination goes, it appears to be a standardized cop-out used frequently enough by non-theists to sweepingly dismiss theism with a simply wave of the hand.
As such, I will understand perfectly if you cannot bear the thought of head to head with anyone you publicly regard as imagining GODs. The derision non-theists intend in that type of expression of opinion, is noted.

Zzyzx: ANY of the thousands of 'gods' proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over by humans MAY be real -- awaiting verifiable evidence which, if any, are more than products of human imagination.

What question, specifically, would you propose to debate in H2H with a Non-Theist?

William: Do you wish to go head to head with me on the Panentheist idea of GOD Zzyzx? If so, we can take this to PM and sort out together what question, specifically.

[2ndRateMind]

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?

I don't have much of a problem with this. So far as I am concerned, God is infinitely perfect, and I am not. However I conceive of God, it will not be as good as the reality. But, hopefully, as I grow older and wiser, it may be that may conception becomes more accurate.

So, my advice is simply to imagine the most perfect, good, righteous, compassionate, just, kind being you can, and let that be your God, with these provisos: a) God is even better than that; and b) expect that your notion of God will change as you develop spiritual maturity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Zzyzx]

.
Why all the imagining?

Would it not be preferable to deal with life on the basis of what is actually known of the real world?

Imagination is wonderful and/or entertaining; however, it doesn't seem to be a sound basis for life decisions.

[William]

Zzyzx: Why all the imagining?

Would it not be preferable to deal with life on the basis of what is actually known of the real world?

Imagination is wonderful and/or entertaining; however, it doesn't seem to be a sound basis for life decisions

William: Are you content with the way the real world is? Do you realize that imagination is always the first part of the process of change?
Perhaps the real world isn't about belittling imagination but faulting what is being imagined and made real through human invention.