The nature of God

[Purple Rabbit]

OK, fair enough, so we both agree that we don't need a god to appreciate life. It now seems that it wasn't a completely rididulous POV after all. Your call on the alleged sophistry clause to dodge the question in the first round evaporates just like that and it even seems we're getting in some dialogue here because you now try to express the added value of your god concept, which indeed is what this is about.

So we can figure out for ourselves that life is worthwile. No god is needed for that. You say that you appreciate something extra with god. But exactly what it is and how you can tell it's extra, is still pretty vague. You talk about achieving a healthy perspective. I am very curious how your god concept assures you keep a healthy perspective. A healthy perspective in my dictionary is one that is constantly challenged by reason and new facts about reality. To seek harmony with nature, culture and reason is what I do to get a healthy perspective. Probably I am all wrong about that. But how can a faith-based accomplish just that? When I was a believer I was told not to challenge dogma, to take god's mysterious ways as an answer (pretty much to all my questions). I'm sure I must have done something terribly wrong, possibly I cannot have been a true believer or my belief was a childish one in comparison with your theologically well wrought higher form of belief that guides you so well in a healthy perspective on your own account. But please elaborate on that here in simple words, my friend, so all christian kids in the world today may profit from it.

[fr0d0]

The extra's I appreciate are exclusive to my faith, being from that relationship. It's not all the time. I'll try to think of a specific example for you.

I didn't say that I 'achieved' a healthy perspective', but have that aim. Just like you, I'm affected by my own rationalising of any given situation. What you're doing, and what anyone would, is reasoning your way to as healthy an outlook as possible. We just use different methods. The difference is though, I don't mock and condemn you for your methodology.

It is anti Christian to not challenge belief. It is an essential requisite that many people fail to recognise. Just yesterday a friend was telling me how in school RE class the prissy teacher told her she mustn't question... which of course lost her the respect of the class. You can't champion error for me to defend I'm afraid.

[KichigaiNeko]

While the kiddies squabble over who has the biggest deity....... I shall try to return to your thought experiment ZB.

I have difficulty conceiving a "god" per se in this new paradigm. I would propose that there would be an abscence of a deity as a matter of course. While my grounding in Quantum Mechanics / Theory and Cosmology is weak I would envisage that humans would recognise that there is "something" that is totally disinterested in what we think and how we feel and certainly would not give a tinkers cus wheather we worship it or not.

Just what that "something" is and how we will name it has been put forward, funnily enough within a popular movie franchise. Using this model it's nature is that "It IS" and that life (That just IS)creates it. Hellava lot of Is-ing going on I know but even from this perspective (subjective as it is) I am thinking that mankind is well on the road to this model.

I would like to also think that as a human I will realise that I and my contemporaries have been this 'god thing' all along and that the joke has really been on us ...all along. I would also like to think that humanity will be free of the retraints that plague our minds at the present space/ time.

Still so much to unlearn and so much more to find out..... best game in town I should think??