Originally Posted by
osan
By my definition of "God", his existence is self evident.
QED.
In such a case, it might not be rational. But that is not the case for me. What is "God" for me, may be something else to you and others.
As you might now see, words are generally very tricky affairs. Language is all at once divine and devilish. Its power is enormous. Our power to precisely control it, mostly very limited, largely due to our bad habits and the general circumstance of linguistic degradation through those habits. But that can be changed at any time, given the will.
As my aunt Marie says with such deep truth: your thoughts form your reality. To that I add: your words form your thoughts.
Think of what that means awhile. It is this truth that leads me to the conclusion that language is the single most important skill one ever learns in life, bar none. Love, belief in "God", and all else take a distant back-seat to language in terms of pure import, for without language virtually none of those other things would exist for us. Words build the thoughts which build the reality we take mainly for granted.
Want proof of "God"? LANGUAGE. I doubt that it could have arisen of its own accord, for it is far and away too complex. Grammar universally speaks to the relationships of labels. These labels are affixed to real objects in the world that, were it not for our linguistic proclivity, would have no labels otherwise. Without language, the only knowledge humans would have would be reflexive in nature, arising from our hard-wired nerve structure, which is the basis of our perceptual capacities. We would know pain, yet would have no name for it. We would know hunger, lust, fear, joy, yet our knowledge of these would have a decidedly different character in the absence of the words we use to describe and think about them. It is unclear, in fact whether we would even think without words. Once again, we come to definitions, in this case what it means to "think".
Everything we do, from sleeping to screwing to fighting for our lives and designing buildings and the next generation of computer architecture is wholly, utterly, and irrevocably tied to language.
If we assume that we were once naught but brooding, grunting brachiators, what spark then lead the first man to associate a verbally-issued noise from his own throat with something "out there" in the world? I do not call it mere happenstance, but "God". There is purpose in the universe and we see it all around us. INTENTION is evidence of God and it is everywhere, from the boy chasing the girl for a little reproductive fun, to the pouring of a concrete foundation for a house. The Christians say that "God" is everywhere, and they are precisely correct. Were you and I to meet in the flesh, it is God upon whom my eyes would come to rest, just as it it when I look in the mirror, all joking around about my great humility aside for the moment.
Paper is evidence of God, as is water, for each is a manifestation of the mystery of existence. God exists, and therefore the universe does, for they are one and the same. There is literally no place where God is not. The only error Christians and other similar believers make, IMO, lies in the details of their conceptions of "God". Is God really a man with dangly bit 'tween his legs? Is the creator of the quasars really so limited a creature as conceived by the 3 "great" western religious traditions? Could be, but I profoundly doubt it. The strength of my definition is that not only is God self-evident, "he" remains defined only in the broadest and most vague ways. After all, if we as individuals are not capable of completely knowing every aspect of every "item" in this universe, then we are incapable of pinning "God" down to a clear and universally demonstrable definition. So-called "science", when done correctly, expands and improves our definition of "God", and yet it remains incomplete and grossly wanting. To presume to know the will of God as a gestalt, for example, is the very apex of personal hubris - in my opinion. But this is now going too far down the rabbit hole and it is not my intention to hijack this thread, pardon me please.
The precise meaning of your statement being the "Christian conception of God", which is to say the definition. Note how even the most complex and subtly profound discussions and notions always boil down to the basic linguistic elements.
If one is going to not believe in "God", it is my advice that they at least recognize the central importance of their personal definition of the term. I do not believe God is a cranky, sadistic old pig so utterly angry that he has set up this system of evil between men for his own amusement. I admit I could be wrong on that point and that he is precisely that. But until so proven, I will choose another path.
Life is mostly all about choices.
You have mistaken what I have written in the previous post. Hopefully this one has made sufficient clarification of my meanings.
Connect With Us