tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6678398741779831773.post4329538818116455531..comments2013-07-17T05:59:58.158-07:00Comments on Caribbean Freethinkers' Society: Just Who Is This God You Speak of?The Caribbean Freethinkers' Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16736196870603100069noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6678398741779831773.post-89668635833908124822012-11-19T21:01:50.629-08:002012-11-19T21:01:50.629-08:00Taking the word 'God' literally it simply ...Taking the word 'God' literally it simply means a figure of worship. So literally anything (animate or inanimate) can be one's God from themselves to their car to their pet dog. The thing that they worship - not necessarily literally. Taking this definition: every single human being have a god/s whether they know it or not. They don't necessarily have to bow down or pray to it. Just see where they spend the most time it'll guide you on to it.<br /><br />Now that is has been established that there can be infinite gods it is thus utterly foolish to assume that when two individuals mention the word God they are automatically talking about the same object.<br /><br />Nice analogy about replacing the word 'god' with a name but considering that as you mentioned most religions have a 'name' for their god and it still maintains the same 'aura' and that when your talk about 'traits of god' you're actually talking and expecting about the traits of a 'human' not a god make the logic sort of fuzzy.<br /> <br />A friend can establish a relationship with a pen-pal without actually knowing his physical attributes but what attributes are there to know about god? You then have to specify which determine the attributes or 'traits' he/she/it possess. You speak about sensory details but is it possible to contact all gods with your five senses or are there other means of contacting and accessing his attributes. I can't say authoritatively but for non-Catholic Christianity that MAY be the case. <br /><br />So as you may see by now in order for the logic to not go all fuzzy and skewed there is need for more specialization and understanding of god as a whole. Contrary to popular belief - understanding the concept of God is not for the 'simple-minded'. Its way more complex than we currently understand.<br /><br />This is getting too long so i'll just touch on one other topic. Time<br />No one have experience the absence of time or existence in a system where time and space are not coexistent dimensions. <br />So in the hypothetical context of 'eternity' whilst it 'may' be true that there is no past nor future only present, does it also implies the necessity for the lack of sequence. Could it be that although sequentially things may occur in consecutive intervals(taking a time analogy), could it be in perception to only exist in the present. Is time dependent on the systems that define it and our perception of it on fact that we actually are bound by time? Our every existence and our biological clock ticking from birth. In a absence of the time dimension is it perception based. <br /><br />I'm sure by now you realize my point. Ourselves, very much like Craig are attempting to make definite(factual) statements based on assumptions of systems over which we have to experience or understanding. That in itself is very very foolish. We need to understand that only assumptions can be made based upon assumptions. The summation of the error in each assumption may lead us with a error that is as large as our assertion itself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com