• christian2017
    295
    No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?"

    Perhaps the reason people can't agree on anything in these discussions is that each person is talking about a different 'God.'
    YuZhonglu

    I doubt it. I think its a lack of understanding of advanced geometry and even a lack of understanding of chemistry and physics. We should start with Newtonian physics and move up.
  • christian2017
    295


    But my senses are different from yours. Doesn't this mean I would define matter and material differently than you? -YuZhonglu

    To some measure yes. Each person's experiences greatly shapes the decisions they make and their notions of what is true.
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    Oh don' t bother. As it happens my math is better than yours.
  • christian2017
    295
    Oh don' t bother. As it happens my math is better than yours.YuZhonglu

    Prove it.
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    So that means when he talks about God, and when you talk about God, and when I talk about God, we're each talking about a different God. Right?
  • christian2017
    295
    So that means when he talks about God, and when you talk about God, and when I talk about God, we're each talking about a different God. Right?YuZhonglu

    sure. What does that have to do with the OP.
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    Ok. Goes like this. Let's say Person A provides an answer to his question. "God is material because of X or Y reason."

    But if Person A is talking about a different God than the OP, doesn't that mean Person A didn't actually answer the OP's question? 'Cuz what the OP is asking for is whether HIS concept of God is material or not, whereas Person A in his answer is referring to Person A's concept of God.
  • christian2017
    295
    Ok. Goes like this. Let's say Person A provides an answer to his question. "God is material because of X or Y reason."

    But if Person A is talking about a different God than the OP, doesn't that mean he didn't actually answer the OP's question? 'Cuz what the OP is asking for is whether HIS concept of God is material or not.
    YuZhonglu

    i don't feel i should have to explain this in relation to the OP but:
    the OP is saying god could fit just about any basic model given in religions of the world. From collective consceince ranging all the way to Allah or Jehohah. But he is refering to something that has the ability to make decisions or that thinks it can make decisions. Collective conscience falls under those criteria it just is a concept that is not quickly articulated.
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    That's remarkably vague.
  • christian2017
    295


    i'll pull up a definition of collective consceince and we'll use that as the definition of god for this OP until the OP clarifies this
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    Good. But put it in your own words. I don't want to read a hyperlink.

    EDIT: Hyperlinks are lazy.
  • christian2017
    295
    Collective Soul:

    The notion that even though we each testify to different things ultimately we are all many voices inside one being that transcends the whole universe. I believe if explained a certain way that this can be attributed to any religion. Its like a world wide web but is usually given an eternal like aspect. There are many variations and sub variations on this concept.
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    That definition doesn't make any sense. I'm a different person than you. Furthermore, nothing can transcend the universe because the universe by definition includes all.
  • christian2017
    295


    yeah i should have used the word extend instead of transcend for the sake of argument. You are correct. As far as alot of things in modern science as well as in religion too, yes alot things don't make sense. I gave you a definition of Collective Soul because you didn't want a hyperlink.
  • christian2017
    295
    but were off topic from the OP
  • YuZhonglu
    218
    What I'm really asking for is:

    Is the OP's question even answerable?
  • S
    10.2k
    but we're off topic from the OPchristian2017

    Just a tad. But it doesn't really matter because he doesn't listen and in is in denial, so nothing we say will have any impact. He'll just repeat himself.
  • christian2017
    295
    Is the OP's question even answerable?YuZhonglu

    thats a good question. The OP does point to the fact that how we percieve our world could be a reflection on the time in history that we live in and....

    The OP would have to go into tremendously more detail to get his/her point across.
  • 0 thru 9
    820
    Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material?
    ā€” 0 thru 9

    Material. They're ways that our brains function.
    Terrapin Station
    Thoughts themselves (as we experience them) are material? Is that what you are saying? Can they be measured, seen, or detected?
  • whollyrolling
    412


    Every argument for the existence of the supernatural begins with an assumption that it exists. The argument fails before it reaches an explanation.
  • christian2017
    295
    Every argument for the existence of the supernatural begins with an assumption that it exists. The argument fails before it reaches an explanation.whollyrolling

    i guess he was saying this creature or entity isn't really supernatural but is in fact a phenomenon that can be explained through advanced geometry and other fields of math and science.
  • 0 thru 9
    820
    Collective Soul:

    The notion that even though we each testify to different things ultimately we are all many voices inside one being that transcends the whole universe. I believe if explained a certain way that this can be attributed to any religion. Its like a world wide web but is usually given an eternal like aspect. There are many variations and sub variations on this concept.
    christian2017

    Noosphere?
  • christian2017
    295


    I looked up Noosphere on wikipedia. I would have to study that essay for about a day to understand it. My definition was based on various people who believed in new age things, who have described similar things over the years.
  • whollyrolling
    412


    Explain why the universe can't have been an incidental result of some greater process and so on and so on until the explanation is vast enough that humans will be extinct before they reach an infinitesimal understanding even of their own solar system, let alone what's beyond the limits of the observable universe. It is lazy and defensive to attribute it to the supernatural.

    We can say that it must all have a beginning because everything we observe seems to have a beginning, yet if we're to base truth on observation, then we have to observe a creator before claiming it as if it was truth, and to claim it as truth without observation is just a time-consuming distraction. We can observe this time-consuming distraction and its negative effects on humanity by leafing through several thousand years of documented history, a large percentage of which has been wasted on claims of the supernatural for which there's no observable evidence. Wars have been waged and time and money squandered on worship and construction while humanity suffers under the supervision of imaginary sky parents--sky parents with distinctly human characteristics and distinctly natural habits.
  • christian2017
    295


    this is not historically accurate. we're getting off topic.
  • whollyrolling
    412


    I'm on topic, and I didn't refer to a specific historical instance. Maybe you could elaborate on that, I'm not sure what you feel is inaccurate.
  • christian2017
    295


    'm on topic, and I didn't refer to a specific historical instance. Maybe you could elaborate on that, I'm not sure what you feel is inaccurate.whollyrolling

    i'm not getting into that. Start another topic and i'll reply to that topic on religion and it's role in world violence.
  • whollyrolling
    412


    I'm not talking only about violence, and it's not the main focus of my comment, just a portion. It's a relevant portion because belief in the supernatural has been used to justify atrocity more than it's been used to promote benevolence, and it's acted as a catalyst for rage among differing cultures. I'm talking about a species wasting time chasing invisible friends and carving statues that combine animals and humans and scary-face folk art instead of making ethical and intellectual progress.
  • christian2017
    295
    I'm not talking only about violence, and it's not the main focus of my comment, just a portion. It's a relevant portion because belief in the supernatural has been used to justify atrocity more than it's been used to promote benevolence, and it's acted as a catalyst for rage among differing cultures. I'm talking about a species wasting time chasing invisible friends and carving statues that combine animals and humans and scary-face folk art instead of making ethical and intellectual progress.whollyrolling

    ok. I disagree. Thats off topic. Post another topic about that subject and stop being a troll today.
  • whollyrolling
    412


    What are you talking about, being a troll? You're off topic and brushing my commentary aside without even considering it. It's not off topic. Try to be a little more open minded.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement ā€” just fascinating conversations.