How strong is your faith?

[Avatar]

My faith is so strong that you could show me a video of the big bang & I would still disbelieve it.

YOU DON'T KNOW. YOU WEREn"T THERE!

THat's the picture. So how do you explain yourself when you just accept something because it is written down?

So on what basis do you accept the existence of god then, if you don't (can't) know, because you weren't there?

--A

[The Somberlain]

Irony.... is a wonderful thing.

[ur-bane]

Having closely followed this conversation and the "paradox" conversation, I must say that you, The Esmer are in fact basing all your questions and statements with a pre-determined conclusion of the existence of a creator/god. Avatar, on the other hand, is not.

Having closely manipulated this conversation and totally obliterated the "paradox" conversation, I must say that, I, The Esmer, am in fact basing all my questions and statements with a SELF-determined conclusion of the existence of a creator/god. Avatar, on the other hand, is not.

Now, perhaps you would like to elaborate on your self-determined conclusion? I am interested in knowing the defining moment(s) for those who have faith in a god, regardless of the religion. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
And in light of agnostic and athiest views, how is it that you hold faith? (I know, the question can be reversed, but I am interested in it from a believer's viewpoint)

[The Laughing Man]

Simply because, in our lives explicitly, we cannot create (build, manufacture, etc.) anything on earth without the "intent" to do so. Intent is the force that drives everything we do, and is the "Indescribable Force" that is the "irreducuble residue" of Reality. That before there can "be", there must be a "will to be". We are aware, awareness is a component of our reality, it comes from it because it is a part of it. Therefore "It" must also be aware. Intend>Create. I was "directed" to this "description" to be sure, but as all things, we can only go with what "makes sense" to us. This view of an "impersonal" force that is the underlying fabric of reality, or awareness, is the one most "verifiable" explanation for me, especially since the only penalty for failure is simply failure, not eternal hell and punishment, nor the flip side of that coin, eternal reward. Reality "just is", and you may do with it what you "will". You may also say that my "faith" is the "irreducible residue" of all faiths and beliefs. Just add balls......

does your "real" father mess around in your life? Or as an Adult, is he required to accept your decisions and allow you to "live your own" life?

As it is above, so is it below.

[Prebe]

Isn't intent just a fancy word we put on the sum of our demands?

[The Laughing Man]

Isn't intent just a fancy word we put on the sum of our demands?

no,no, not at all! it's the source of our demands!

[Prebe]

I would say that a demand comes before the intent to fulfill it.

I like the new Avatar The Emser. Very artsy.

[Avatar]

Simply because, in our lives explicitly, we cannot create (build, manufacture, etc.) anything on earth without the "intent" to do so. Intent is the force that drives everything we do, and is the "Indescribable Force" that is the "irreducuble residue" of Reality. That before there can "be", there must be a "will to be".

We cannot "create" without will, certainly, that I'll give you.

But it still assumes creation. Creation implies a will by its very definition.

cre·a·tion
n.

The act of creating.
The fact or state of having been created.
The act of investing with a new office or title.

The world and all things in it.
All creatures or a class of creatures.
Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.

To cause to exist; bring into being.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

This view of an "impersonal" force that is the underlying fabric of reality, or awareness, is the one most "verifiable" explanation for me, especially since the only penalty for failure is simply failure, not eternal hell and punishment, nor the flip side of that coin, eternal reward. Reality "just is", and you may do with it what you "will".

Can an impersonal force have a will? An impersonal force is something that I find a lot easier to accept than the idea of "god". In fact, "god", the very idea of god, is of a very personal force indeed.

Will:

The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
The act of exercising the will.

Diligent purposefulness; determination.
Self-control; self-discipline.
A desire, purpose, or determination, especially of one in authority. Deliberate intention or wish.

Impersonal

Lacking personality; not being a person: an impersonal force.

Showing no emotion or personality.
Having no personal reference or connection.
Not responsive to or expressive of human personalities.

An impersonal force can have no will. Like reality, it just is. Once a will exists, there is personality. Does an impersonal force decide to create something? Does a hurricane choose (excercise its will) to destroy something?

An impersonal force cannot, as I see it, be a god.

In all other rexspects, I like your interpretation. But I can't ascribe "will" to it.

--Avatar

[ur-bane]

Excellently said, Avatar. I agree entirely.

Esmer- you wrote:

That before there can "be", there must be a "will to be".

Here I cannot agree. Existence in no way dictates "will." I think Avatar covered the "will" aspect of existence very well. Will to act perhaps, but not to be.

[The Laughing Man]

I would say that a demand comes before the intent to fulfill it.

I like the new Avatar The Emser. Very artsy.

(I assume you speak of the avatar that got
"moderated"? thanx anyway! )

Will, or "INTENT"

Intent is the plan and will to act in a particular way or choice to remain inactive.

The singlemost causal agency in all action, creation, destruction and change at all levels of existence. That component of consciousness which gives rise to all forms. The means by which the Will of God and Natural Law is manifest. The essence and source of motivation.

First of all, this is a matter of "faith". I cannot prove the existence of "God" any more than you can "disprove" it. I hope that isn't what we are trying to acomplish here.

We cannot "create" without will, certainly, that I'll give you.

But it still assumes creation. Creation implies a will by its very definition.

We cannot "create" without will, certainly, that I'll give you.

But it still assumes creation. Creation implies a will by its very description.

Can an impersonal force have a will? An impersonal force is something that I find a lot easier to accept than the idea of "god". In fact, "god", the very idea of god, is of a very personal force indeed.

(imagine attacking a lion with your farts!) Would you say that a "lion" is an impersonal force? Do you think it cares about "your feelings" when it is chasing you and eating you? Can you two sit down and get to know each other and "talk things out"? All that animal IS is will, the will to survive. Very "impersonal" indeed, eh? If God made it, and it wants to eat you, whats that speak for a

"Personal God",


eh? (audio required!)

An impersonal force can have no will. Like reality, it just is. Once a will exists, there is personality. Does an impersonal force decide to create something? Does a hurricane choose (excercise its will) to destroy something? An impersonal force cannot, as I see it, be a god.
In all other rexspects, I like your interpretation. But I can't ascribe "will" to it.

--Avatar

The "personality" is the "self-description" of the "self-interpretation" of the "self-perception" of "self-awareness" of "self-intent". A "personal description". Perhaps "impersonal" could better be acceoted as "not-human". Humans are not capable of creating what we see and touch around us to the extent that it exists, therefore we cannot seek to "identify with", or "make personal", something so outside our "puny mental capacity" to comprehend whatever was capable of all this. Do you believe that God actually has a

"physical brain"?
I can have a simple conversation here about "formatting a hard drive" and many of you would not have the faintest idea what I was talking about, because you don't "share the values" of the terms and processes that I am speaking of.

We can't "share the values" of Creator, because Creator is beyond our understanding, which I think is on purpose. And finally, my good men, what a "God" is capable of, or not, or "concerned with", or not, is dependent upon the individual intent.
"Subjective".


No one to tell you what is right and what is wrong, except other "people" who cannot speak for that which they cannot know
= FREEDOM.

"you can choose from phantom fears
and kindness that can kill
i will choose a path thats clear
i will choose free will"
rush

[Avatar]

Sifting through all that, (you have too much time on your hands dude, and illustrations are not always necessary. ), there are a few things to say: (I prefer the new avatar BTW, (the yin yang one) very nice.

Would you say that a "lion" is an impersonal force? Do you think it cares about "your feelings" when it is chasing you and eating you? Can you two sit down and get to know each other and "talk things out"? All that animal IS is will...

No, I don't think a Lion is an impersonal force. On the contrary, it is very personal. It is motivated by it's will, which means it has an identity, and awareness, and is thus personal.

The "personality" is the "self-description" of the "self-interpretation" of the "self-perception" of "self-awareness" of "self-intent". A "personal description". Perhaps "impersonal" could better be acceoted as "not-human". Humans are not capable of creating what we see and touch around us to the extent that it exists, therefore we cannot seek to "identify with", or "make personal", something so outside our "puny mental capacity" to comprehend whatever was capable of all this. Do you believe that God actually has a "physical brain"?

"Non-human" does not imply impersonal. And the question of a physical brain is a moot one. What is at issue here, is this:

Impersonal: 1520, a grammatical term, from L.L. impersonalis, from in- "not" + personalis "personal." Sense of "not connected with any person" is from 1630; that of "not endowed with personality" is from 1842.

(Emphasis mine.)

We can't "share the values" of Creator, because Creator is beyond our understanding, which I think is on purpose. And finally, my good men, what a "God" is capable of, or not, or "concerned with", or not, is dependent upon the individual intent.
"Subjective".

Values imply personality, and personality makes possible intent. Nothing impersonal can exhibit or act according to an intent, which depends on the existence of a personality, an individuality, an awareness. If a creator is aware, and acts according to that awareness, it cannot be "impersonal."

--Avatar

[The Laughing Man]

when you know what your doing, and love what you do,
it doesn't take that long...
and sometimes illustrations

save you a whole bunch more crap to read!
and surely they help to "illustrate" the point, or just evoke a feeling.
and thank you, I was glad to find the yinyangdoodle thingy.....


impersonal
(im-per-son-al) Impersonal means having no personal reference.


you have yours, and I mine, no? subjective, yes?

[Avatar]

In the end, everything is.

Looks like we'll have to agree to differ.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

paradox?

an argument which seems to justify a self-contradictory conclusion by using valid deductions from acceptable premises.

I WIN!

[sgt.null]

imagine if esmer, dennisrwood and lurch made posts together. i would pay to see those.

[The Laughing Man]

imagine if esmer, zeph and lurch made posts together. i would pay to see those.

you look like people pay to see you! you could use that money!

[ur-bane]

imagine if esmer, zeph and lurch made posts together. i would pay to see those.

You'd definitely get you money's worth.
All the post counts would drop due to how long it would take to decipher their post content.
I get a kick out of Esmer linking every 10th word to something.

[The Laughing Man]

(I aim to please, and shoot to thrill!)
(you know the pics have links, too, right? )


this definitely helps!

[sgt.null]

i am in awe. someone should really combine the posts of Esmer, dennisrwood and Lurch. I could use the laughs.

Zamfir