NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering, as I've seen a few threads recently about accepting things in place science should a theory be disproven...

If there were empirical, undoubtable proof that god(s) did not exist, would you renounce your faith in god(s) and become an atheist (for all intents and purposes)?

these responses should be interesting...

these responses should be interesting...
I'll bet they're not all that interesting. I'll bet most people simply avoid the question by saying that there's no proof god doesn't exist, there can never be such proof, therefore they won't answer.

I'll bet they're not all that interesting. I'll bet most people simply avoid the question by saying that there's no proof god doesn't exist, there can never be such proof, therefore they won't answer.
That's pretty much all that can be said, as the original post posits "proof" of a negative being a reason to give up believing in a positive, and one cannot prove a negative. (It also posits empirical evidence of something immaterial, which is an impossibility.)

That's pretty much all that can be said, as the original post posits "proof" of a negative being a reason to give up believing in a positive, and one cannot prove a negative. (It also posits empirical evidence of something immaterial, which is an impossibility.)

Right...this is a hypothetical situation. Hypothetically...what would you do?

Believe me, my whole argument against religion is the fact that there can be no proof. That's not the point here. This is more of a what if...

That's pretty much all that can be said, as the original post posits "proof" of a negative being a reason to give up believing in a positive, and one cannot prove a negative. (It also posits empirical evidence of something immaterial, which is an impossibility.)

posing a new thought: what if some form of evidence proved that the religion you believed was false?

Right...this is a hypothetical situation. Hypothetically...what would you do?

Believe me, my whole argument against religion is the fact that there can be no proof. That's not the point here. This is more of a what if...
Well, as Drunk Commies guessed, I, for one, am going to avoid the question. I'm not very good at imagining impossibilities. ;)

Well, as Drunk Commies guessed, I, for one, am going to avoid the question. I'm not very good at imagining impossibilities. ;)

Wow...I guess you aren't religious then at all.

posing a new thought: what if some form of evidence proved that the religion you believed was false?
This is a much more interesting question. Personally, I feel that no religions are "false". By "false", I assume you mean not literally true, and it is my belief that no religion is intended to be read as a literal truth. There is already much evidence that religion is not intended to be literally interpreted, most of it in the research field of the study of comparative mythology.

Wow...I guess you aren't religious then at all.
The god I imagine is not an impossibility. ;)

This is a much more interesting question. Personally, I feel that no religions are "false". By "false", I assume you mean not literally true, and it is my belief that no religion is intended to be read as a literal truth. There is already much evidence that religion is not intended to be literally interpreted, most of it in the research field of the study of comparative mythology.

what about the fact of absolute truth? truth is absolute, therefore, since all religions differ on salvation, ect. then only one can be "true" and the rest "false."

I was wondering, as I've seen a few threads recently about accepting things in place science should a theory be disproven...

If there were empirical, undoubtable proof that god(s) did not exist, would you renounce your faith in god(s) and become an atheist (for all intents and purposes)?

As religious as I am, I would have to say 'yes' I would become an atheist if undoubtable proof was given. I don't believe anyone believes something that has/could be proven 100% incorrect. The only problem is whether or not something can be proven 100% incorrect or even correct.

what about the fact of absolute truth? truth is absolute, therefore, since all religions differ on salvation, ect. then only one can be "true" and the rest "false."
Truth is absolute: things are either true or they are not. What you will find "false" about a religion depends on what you are expecting to be "true" about the religion. If you expect it to be literally true, then it can and probably will be proven literally false, because it is not intended to be literally true. The truth of religion is in the non-literal, the meaningful messages that shine through the literal symbolism.

If there was undenyable evidence that provided 100% proof of a diety being non-existant? Well, yeah. I follow truth. However, I don't think that could ever be proven, and I happen to believe that God does exist, so that's not something that I'll have to worry about. ;)

Yes, because your proof is undoubtable.

But I won't, because you can't.

I believe that the Gods I worship and honor "exist" purely as a consequence of human "psychology" and culture; as a map of human existence imposed on reality (and to a certain extent, the opposite). They are most certainly not creators, for example. They are, in the simplest (too simple) terms, useful "metaphors" for understanding atman/self/humanity. How could science deny me that? I let these Gods be, I think i deserve to be the only one that can tell myself whether or not they exist.

There is no such thing as absolute truth, folks.

Reality is dependent upon perception and shared context.

There is no such thing as absolute truth, folks.

Reality is dependent upon perception and shared context.
Reality and truth are two separate concepts.

Truth is absolute: things are either true or they are not. What you will find "false" about a religion depends on what you are expecting to be "true" about the religion. If you expect it to be literally true, then it can and probably will be proven literally false, because it is not intended to be literally true. The truth of religion is in the non-literal, the meaningful messages that shine through the literal symbolism.

hmm, what is it that you actually believe Willamena? you dont seem to be invovled in mainstream religion or beliefs for that much.

if we take out all literal aspects of a religion it seems that the only meanings are pointing to some godlike entity, but that its existance isnt explained fully or cant be comprehended.

Reality and truth are two separate concepts.

but they're both concepts? do you believe that they are anything else other than that? ;)

There is no such thing as absolute truth, folks.

Reality is dependent upon perception and shared context.

Unless there is a God who has a perception of life, the universe, and everything, which makes that one perception Absolute Truth...

There is no such thing as absolute truth, folks.

Reality is dependent upon perception and shared context.

look at the bold. is that statement absolutely true?

hmm, what is it that you actually believe Willamena? you dont seem to be invovled in mainstream religion or beliefs for that much.

if we take out all literal aspects of a religion it seems that the only meanings are pointing to some godlike entity, but that its existance isnt explained fully or cant be comprehended.
I believe that religion is about the individual, not about the god, so whether or not the god exists is irrelevant. The literal exists only as symbolism for deeper meanings, the study of which could (and do) occupy a person for a lifetime. You are correct, that I do not subscribe to any organized religion.

man these forums just keep getting more and more boring.




Hey, i found 1€ inside my nose!

but they're both concepts? do you believe that they are anything else other than that? ;)
They are concepts. The "reality" of concepts is in the validity of them, i.e. how well they work as concepts.

Unless there is a God who has a perception of life, the universe, and everything, which makes that one perception Absolute Truth...

Whose god? Yours? Allah? The pantheon of Zoroastrianism?

man these forums just keep getting more and more boring.




Hey, i found 1€ inside my nose!
You're welcome to not read them if that's what you want.

look at the bold. is that statement absolutely true?

There can be natural laws without absolute truth. They are not mutually exclusive.

I believe that religion is about the individual, not about the god, so whether or not the god exists is irrelevant. The literal exists only as symbolism for deeper meanings, the study of which could (and do) occupy a person for a lifetime. You are correct, that I do not subscribe to any organized religion.

What makes you think that these deeper meanings are what was intended for the individual? What if these deeper meanings have no 'meaning' at all but are only something the human mind looks for when something literal is discarded for non-literal? When looking for a deeper meaning there may not be one except what is literally right infront of you.

Reality and truth are two separate concepts.

No, because to imply that there is an Asbolute Truth you must necessarily say that reality is bound to follow that truth. They are inseparable.

What makes you think that these deeper meanings are what was intended for the individual? What if these deeper meanings have no 'meaning' at all but are only something the human mind looks for when something literal is discarded for non-literal? When looking for a deeper meaning there may not be one except what is literally right infront of you.

**Looks in front of me... sees my bottle of Mountain Dew**

God is in my Dew.

There can be natural laws without absolute truth. They are not mutually exclusive.
But are you speaking the absolute truth about absolute truth if there's no absolute truth?

There can be natural laws without absolute truth. They are not mutually exclusive.

how?

But are you speaking the absolute truth about absolute truth if there's no absolute truth?

right. he is using absolute truth to say there is no absolute truth.

**Looks in front of me... sees my bottle of Mountain Dew**

God is in my Dew.

but thats dangerous interpretation wouldnt you say? what happens if every meaning youve ever thought youve found has been wrong?

What makes you think that these deeper meanings are what was intended for the individual?
Because they are what demonstrably works about all religions.

What if these deeper meanings have no 'meaning' at all but are only something the human mind looks for when something literal is discarded for non-literal? When looking for a deeper meaning there may not be one except what is literally right infront of you.
We give things meaning, we with our intelligence and our imagination. Things don't carry meaning by themselves, we make them meaningful to us. The myth of religions contain symbols that people identified with, and were therefore meaningful to them. Joseph Campbell explained it like this: "The function of mythological symbols is to give you a sense of Aha! Yes. I know what it is, it's myself. This is what it's all about, and then you feel a kind of centering, centering, centering all the time."

A mythic connection is one of identification with the symbol. We see Michael Jordan on the court, and we want to be Michael Jordan on the court... he becomes a symbol of our ambitions, and we superimpose that symbol on ourselves in order to adopt a role that will achieve us the same end. That is myth at work.

Whatever meaning it has is utterly and completely individual, and its up to the person who gives it meaning to make it useful. Anything can have meaning to one person and none to another.

The god I imagine is not an impossibility. ;)

How so? God is impossible to prove, therefore an impossibility. If you say you cannot imagine impossibilities, you cannot imagine your god.

Because they are what demonstrably works about all religions.


We give things meaning, we with our intelligence and our imagination. Things don't carry meaning by themselves, we make them meaningful to us. The myth of religions contain symbols that people identified with, and were therefore meaningful to them. Joseph Campbell explained it like this: "The function of mythological symbols is to give you a sense of Aha! Yes. I know what it is, it's myself. This is what it's all about, and then you feel a kind of centering, centering, centering all the time."

A mythic connection is one of identification with the symbol. We see Michael Jordan on the court, and we want to be Michael Jordan on the court... he becomes a symbol of our ambitions, and we superimpose that symbol on ourselves in order to adopt a role that will achieve us the same end. That is myth at work.

Whatever meaning it has is utterly and completely individual, and its up to the person who gives it meaning to make it useful. Anything can have meaning to one person and none to another.

im still trying to wripe my mind around this one. i see the basic point your making. but how can it be logical to take a symbol and make it mean anything you want? the same symbol taken by thousands of people could render thousands of meanings. that doesnt seem to hold way of finding some kind of truth. how can looking for meanings this way ever get you anywhere towards discovering a godlike entity? i know you said its not about god, but wouldnt you think they have to be connected? how can any religion not hold any direction to god?

How so? God is impossible to prove, therefore an impossibility. If you say you cannot imagine impossibilities, you cannot imagine your god.
The god that is an unknown/unknowable remains a possibility in whatever form I care to imagine. ;)

The god that is an unknown/unknowable remains a possibility in whatever form I care to imagine. ;)

in that case anything could be a possiblity, including the fact that god doesnt exist.why would a god wish to be unknown or unknowable?

look at the bold. is that statement absolutely true?

Fine, be pedantic. Ok the abridged version goes: There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth.

im still trying to wripe my mind around this one. i see the basic point your making. but how can it be logical to take a symbol and make it mean anything you want? the same symbol taken by thousands of people could render thousands of meanings. that doesnt seem to hold way of finding some kind of truth. how can looking for meanings this way ever get you anywhere towards discovering a godlike entity? i know you said its not about god, but wouldnt you think they have to be connected? how can any religion not hold any direction to god?
What we "want" doesn't enter into most of the symbols we make. For most, the meaning is assigned as we "learn the meaning" from someone else. For some, the meaning assignation is spontaneous and only appropriate for one instance, such as when we see a black cat and make it mean something ominous (an omen).

(I'll address the other questions after lunch.)

in that case anything could be a possiblity...
...to me.

But are you speaking the absolute truth about absolute truth if there's no absolute truth?

Nope. That'd be like saying the Law of Intertia or Law of Thermodynamics is the ultimate truth of the universe. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that truth cannot be absolute, it is dependent upon perception and context. That statement is not an Absolute Truth, it is (if true) a natural law.

The two things are separate.

The god that is an unknown/unknowable remains a possibility in whatever form I care to imagine. ;)

If this is true you created your own god. Hence he would not exist if it were not for you.

That makes YOU the creator, not him.

...to me.

so where is the solid ground? if everything is a possibility how can you go foward or backward? there would never something that you could say was real, because you couldnt distinguish the physical from the metaphysical.

(and to your comment about lunch, i have to leave in a few minutes and drive 2 hours north to Louisville Ky. i would like to continue this later ;) )

Nope. That'd be like saying the Law of Intertia or Law of Thermodynamics is the ultimate truth of the universe. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that truth cannot be absolute, it is dependent upon perception and context. That statement is not an Absolute Truth, it is (if true) a natural law.

The two things are separate.

thats a contradiction. you cant make a truth statement and make it valid yet say it is not absolute. if its not absolute then that statement has no truth at all.

the statement "truth cannot be absolute" must be an absolute claim. there is no way around it. its contradictory.

thats a contradiction. you cant make a truth statement and make it valid yet say it is not absolute. if its not absolute then that statement has no truth at all.

the statement "truth cannot be absolute" must be an absolute claim. there is no way around it. its contradictory.

No, that's nothing more than semantics.

I've told you what the difference is. If you don't agree with me that's your prerogative.

Um, there's no way of proving God doesn't exist, only that it does exist.

Um, there's no way of proving God doesn't exist, only that it does exist.
And what way is there to prove that God does exist (I'm just bringing this up before some anti-religion individual gets huffy about it)? I mean, are we supposed to say "Okay, God, or any other applicable deity, if you exist, send us a sign" and wait, then interpret whatever "signs" we may see fit for proof? Or are we going to be more literal and demand something definite like raining orange soda down from the skies?

Personally, it's enough for me that God can't be disproven, which is then where faith comes in. However, I think that if God were absolutely PROVEN to be real, in an undeniable sense, I'd probably be more willing to shy away from it then -- religion is based more on faith than on fact, in my personal perception.

The god that is an unknown/unknowable remains a possibility in whatever form I care to imagine.

However, any form you imagine God to take, is in fact one more form that God definately does not take.

It would be logical to dismiss any conceptualisation of God you construct immediately after it's creation; for it is most certainly incomplete, meaning it is unwholesome.

Well...I guess I got thread jacked...

Drunk Commies was right...not one person actually answered the initial question.

Sad to see that the faithful can't cope...

Well...I guess I got thread jacked...

Drunk Commies was right...not one person actually answered the initial question.

Sad to see that the faithful can't cope...
Sad to see that the questioner can't read into responses that don't include a stated "yes" or "no".

Why post something that heavy if you're not willing to take the risk that people will take it in another direction? That's absolutely no excuse to imply that it's a matter of faith. If you'll take care to notice (or do you actually READ these replies?), it's not JUST the "faithful" that took it off into the direction it's now going, but great blame-laying anyway. I can tell you've probably done it before.

You want me to make it easy for you? No, I wouldn't stop believing. On the other hand, I also don't believe that God can be disproven, but all the arguments I could state have already been pretty accurately stated. However, if you read my reply up there, you'd know how I felt to the contrary, and I'd assume you could've very well gotten the IMPLIED answer out of that post. Last time I overestimate you, I promise.

Simonist']Sad to see that the questioner can't read into responses that don't include a stated "yes" or "no".

Why post something that heavy if you're not willing to take the risk that people will take it in another direction? That's absolutely no excuse to imply that it's a matter of faith. If you'll take care to notice (or do you actually READ these replies?), it's not JUST the "faithful" that took it off into the direction it's now going, but great blame-laying anyway. I can tell you've probably done it before.

You want me to make it easy for you? No, I wouldn't stop believing. On the other hand, I also don't believe that God can be disproven, but all the arguments I could state have already been pretty accurately stated. However, if you read my reply up there, you'd know how I felt to the contrary, and I'd assume you could've very well gotten the IMPLIED answer out of that post. Last time I overestimate you, I promise.


That is a clear answer to the question. It does make it easier.

Taking a post in a different direction is fine if it's not just pure conjecture to avoid approaching anything close to the discussion at hand.

If others presented their points in the fashion of your last paragraph, that would be fantastic. At least address the thread before tangentalizing the tone of the thread.

I thought that was a little uncalled for given the evidence at hand. I have read most of the posts (avoiding those where people got into a more one on one format). Thank you for participating.

That is a clear answer to the question. It does make it easier.

Taking a post in a different direction is fine if it's not just pure conjecture to avoid approaching anything close to the discussion at hand.

If others presented their points in the fashion of your last paragraph, that would be fantastic. At least address the thread before tangentalizing the tone of the thread.

I thought that was a little uncalled for given the evidence at hand. I have read most of the posts (avoiding those where people got into a more one on one format). Thank you for participating.
But by the time many got to the point of posting, the "discussion at hand" no longer was your question, which is the point I was trying to make. And perhaps, like me, though I did go back and change the format before I posted, the original reason they posted was because of THAT discussion, not the question you asked. If you thought this was going to be a problem, perhaps you should've taken more care to throw in the occasional reminder of what the original topic is, rather than waiting four pages to attack those of us with religious conviction as if we're the only ones taking this discussion elsewhere. That, in my opinion, is equally uncalled for. As for the posts where it gets more "one on one", well, I can't speak for all other posters, but oftentimes if I direct a post at somebody, I also take the time to address the entire thread as well. This, obviously, is an exception, because I feel that you wrongfully called some people out on something that they're not entirely at fault for.

Now. I'm going to work like a good little manager, though I wish I had time to see this through to resolution. For the record, aside from the facts that (a) I thought the question in the original post was based on faulty logic, though it may have simply been worded poorly for me to grasp exactly what you were getting at, and (b) I felt you wrongly used the opportunity to attack religious posters only, I have no real problems with you. It's simply a fact that when I feel I (or any group that includes myself) am being accused of something that I'm not to blame for, I snap back. It's a pretty basic reaction.

I'll be back in seven hours (give or take), or you can send me a tele if you feel the urge to further hash this out.

in that case anything could be a possiblity, including the fact that god doesnt exist.why would a god wish to be unknown or unknowable?
I don't know as it is god's wish at all. It's certainly mine that he remain so.

Nope. That'd be like saying the Law of Intertia or Law of Thermodynamics is the ultimate truth of the universe. I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that truth cannot be absolute, it is dependent upon perception and context. That statement is not an Absolute Truth, it is (if true) a natural law.

The two things are separate.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying, then.

Originally Posted by Willamena
The god that is an unknown/unknowable remains a possibility in whatever form I care to imagine.
If this is true you created your own god. Hence he would not exist if it were not for you.

That makes YOU the creator, not him.
No, I create my own image of god. There is a huge difference.

So...the question is...

What if there was proof of God existing?

Well, then I'd believe in Him!

Duh!

(I'm a Christian anyway...)

Um, there's no way of proving God doesn't exist, only that it does exist.

IT!?!?

No, I create my own image of god. There is a huge difference.

I understood the difference, so I'll just repeat my point again.

Any form you imagine God to take, is in fact one more form that God definately does not take.

It would be logical to dismiss any conceptualisation of God you construct immediately after it's creation; for it is most certainly incomplete, meaning it is unwholesome.

In essence, you (your ego, mind) are closest to God when you have no God existing in your life other than the one that really does (should there be one). The very first chapter of the Tao Te Ching covers this very well.

Simonist']But by the time many got to the point of posting, the "discussion at hand" no longer was your question, which is the point I was trying to make. And perhaps, like me, though I did go back and change the format before I posted, the original reason they posted was because of THAT discussion, not the question you asked. If you thought this was going to be a problem, perhaps you should've taken more care to throw in the occasional reminder of what the original topic is, rather than waiting four pages to attack those of us with religious conviction as if we're the only ones taking this discussion elsewhere. That, in my opinion, is equally uncalled for.

What I said was not an intended slap to all those of religious faith, but more an affirmation that Drunk Commies' initial statement was so accurate I was surprised. I apologize if it came across as insulting.

As far as waiting 4 pages, this post ran faster than I thought, and as I only respond to this forum during lulls in work, and as that has been rare today, I did not have the opportunity to address the issue prior to it's 4 page growth.

As for the posts where it gets more "one on one", well, I can't speak for all other posters, but oftentimes if I direct a post at somebody, I also take the time to address the entire thread as well. This, obviously, is an exception, because I feel that you wrongfully called some people out on something that they're not entirely at fault for.

Again, I don't feel I was calling anyone out.

Now. I'm going to work like a good little manager, though I wish I had time to see this through to resolution. For the record, aside from the facts that (a) I thought the question in the original post was based on faulty logic, though it may have simply been worded poorly for me to grasp exactly what you were getting at

Am I not to assume this is a direct slap?

and (b) I felt you wrongly used the opportunity to attack religious posters only, I have no real problems with you. It's simply a fact that when I feel I (or any group that includes myself) am being accused of something that I'm not to blame for, I snap back. It's a pretty basic reaction.

Again, I apologize for posting in a way that could be construed as an insult.

Let me clarify a few things:

1) While to me this post was clear, I explained in my 2nd post (directed to Willamena I believe) that this is a hypothetical situation. I based in a hypothetical post asking that if evolution was proven false and creationism true would I accept. While this is also impossible I said sure, if the proof was empirical. In order to avoid threadjacking, I brought my response question to a new thread.

2) I mean no insults when I post. If it comes across as that I suppose there is nothing I can do.

3) As you do, when directly jumped, I respond in kind. I suppose neither of us can hold that against the other so again, many pardons.



I'll be back in seven hours (give or take), or you can send me a tele if you feel the urge to further hash this out.

I porbably won't be back til Monday as I have a full (and I mean full) weekend schedule this week. My telegram box is always open and if you like you can e-mail me (mailto:pnut75@gmail.com). Have a good weekend if I don't hear from you.

(do you know I had to edit 4 times due to the not <tag> style?)

I believe that religion is about the individual, not about the god, so whether or not the god exists is irrelevant. The literal exists only as symbolism for deeper meanings, the study of which could (and do) occupy a person for a lifetime. You are correct, that I do not subscribe to any organized religion.

Ok...

That's...wierd...

Isn't religion about following a particular lifestyle based around the teaching of the relevant god(s)?
Are you saying that what matters is what goes on in your head; whether you believe or not in a god(s) doesn't actually matter? Doesn't this mean that you don't think there is a god, or if there is, you don't care? :confused:
What are you trying to get out of this? Morality?

I'm just interested.

One final question - what do you call your own personalised sub-religion/philosophy?

Originally Posted by WillamenaOriginally Posted by Willamena
The god that is an unknown/unknowable remains a possibility in whatever form I care to imagine. ;)
in that case anything could be a possiblity...
...to me
so where is the solid ground? if everything is a possibility how can you go foward or backward? there would never something that you could say was real, because you couldnt distinguish the physical from the metaphysical.
I meant that any image of god is a possibility for me, as they are all simply that --images of god. The unknown does not have a face, so we put a face on the unknown.

The Indian goddess with the multiple arms, the Anatolian goddess with her multiple breasts, the perfection of beauty in Apollo and Aphrodite, the compassion of Christ in a blonde-haired, blue-eyed hippy... they are all images of god. Masks. And there are non-visual images of god, concepts but equally symbols, in things "God is..." like omniscience, justice, morality, love.

How so? God is impossible to prove, therefore an impossibility. If you say you cannot imagine impossibilities, you cannot imagine your god.

Your so dum! Just because god is apparently impossible to prove, although it is possible, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist! DUH! :confused:

I meant that any image of god is a possibility for me, as they are all simply that --images of god. The unknown does not have a face, so we put a face on the unknown.

The Indian goddess with the multiple arms, the Anatolian goddess with her multiple breasts, the perfection of beauty in Apollo and Aphrodite, the compassion of Christ in a blonde-haired, blue-eyed hippy... they are all images of god. Masks. And there are non-visual images of god, concepts but equally symbols, in things "God is..." like omniscience, justice, morality, love.

I did always wonder about the image of Christ as presented in the Irish Catholic Neighborhood where I grew up. I also learned never to ask if jesus was really Middle Eastern. I don't think I ever heard hippy though...that's good.

...the same symbol taken by thousands of people could render thousands of meanings. that doesnt seem to hold way of finding some kind of truth. how can looking for meanings this way ever get you anywhere towards discovering a godlike entity? i know you said its not about god, but wouldnt you think they have to be connected? how can any religion not hold any direction to god?
Because discovering the godlike entity is not the point, nor the purpose, of religion. As I said earlier, it's about the individual, the seeker, not the god. People "find god" in their hearts, in their imagination, in their minds. It is an inner seeking.

The image of god is all we CAN know about an unknown. I described religion in other threads as a relationship with god, imagined as whatever image (and we can only imagine what is on the other side of that relationship). Our side of the relationship, we control. So what you choose to put yourself in relationship with (an ideal, a feeling, a universal consciousness, a statue) is up to you.

Needless to say, I find most organized religions unnecessarily complex.

I understood the difference, so I'll just repeat my point again.
Well, I'm glad you understood... now I just hope the person I was addressing also does. ;)

Any form you imagine God to take, is in fact one more form that God definately does not take.

It would be logical to dismiss any conceptualisation of God you construct immediately after it's creation; for it is most certainly incomplete, meaning it is unwholesome.

In essence, you (your ego, mind) are closest to God when you have no God existing in your life other than the one that really does (should there be one). The very first chapter of the Tao Te Ching covers this very well.
Unwholesome? Like bleached wheat?

The word "unwholesome" in this context doesn't mean anything to me. The image of god created is complete, in that it is a complete image. It is not god.

Your so dum! Just because god is apparently impossible to prove, although it is possible, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist! DUH! :confused:

Not the point. Willamena said "I cannot imagine anything that is impossible". Since it is impossible to prove the existence of god, god is therefore an impossibility, by logical methods. Therefore, I said "Then you can't imagine god" and Willamena retorted..

Why am I doing this...read the posts...

And dumb is spelled with "b"...

Ok...

That's...wierd...
Thank you. :D

So is your handle. ;)

Isn't religion about following a particular lifestyle based around the teaching of the relevant god(s)?
Not all texts are about gods in the role of teachers. Some texts just present the god's story in straight narrative.

Are you saying that what matters is what goes on in your head; whether you believe or not in a god(s) doesn't actually matter? Doesn't this mean that you don't think there is a god, or if there is, you don't care? :confused:
Well, yes, I would say that all that matters is what goes on in your head. Heart, intellect, conscience, will... they all exist "in your head".

Whether god exists or not is not the same as whether you believe in him or not. I do believe there is a god, but he is an unknown (I choose to call god "he" rather than other identifiers because it makes "him" more personable).

What are you trying to get out of this? Morality?

I'm just interested.

One final question - what do you call your own personalised sub-religion/philosophy?
I read that at first as, "What do you hope to get out of this?" and had to read it twice. I'll take that as an omen, as hope is one of the things I get out of it. I get personal satisfaction in many ways from having the concept of god that I have.

I call it my religion. :)

Since it is impossible to prove the existence of god, god is therefore an impossibility, by logical methods.
We have as yet no means of proving life exists on other planets/orbiting bodies.

That doesn't mean it is impossible life exists out there.

But you do have a point about the god which is unknowable. ;)

I was wondering, as I've seen a few threads recently about accepting things in place science should a theory be disproven...

If there were empirical, undoubtable proof that god(s) did not exist, would you renounce your faith in god(s) and become an atheist (for all intents and purposes)?

I am a Christian. My answer is yes.