Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

I don't think I could post an opinion on the form of a creator, except to simply call it supernatural

Do you insist that a creator must necessarily be part of its own creation? That it be constrained by its own works rather than its own choices and decisions? Interesting idea

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Norman, when we say supernatural, it's implied that the statement involves anything outside of the natural laws of nature. So if your view is that the order and workings of nature are what you call "god" than there is no contradiction to my statement. A natural creator is simpler than a supernatural one, but he is then bound by the laws that restrict every other constituent of the universe.

Well, to me that is like saying my lungs, my liver, and my left ventricle are "Me." The way I look at it, all those things are a part of me, just as nature is a part of God.

Mark,

I didn't read the last couple of pages of this thread (my old eyes were tiring.) So I don't know ALL of what everyone said. However I did get the sense that there are some strongly held beliefs in Creation by Intelligent Design and the belief in Evolution / Natural Selection.
I come down on the side of Creation. Personally, I call The Creator, God. You may call him, Jehovah, Something Else, or Fred...I really don't care. My beliefs come from long study of the Bible.
I find that there is nothing any more beautiful than the female body. In the plant world, I am partial to daisies and honeysuckle. And likewise, cats, when we are speaking of animals. I don't feel that any of these lovely things came about due to a lightning strike in some ocean, somewhere.
I have stated my strongly held belief in a Creator. I cannot prove (scientifically) that He exists. Neither can any of you, scientifically PROVE that you had breakfast last Thursday. Scientific proof is not necessary to me, although I admit that I sometimes wonder... PROOF does not require Faith. But whether you call it Faith, belief, or trust, I feel that everyone has a need for it, on some level.
I have said at other times, a belief system, organization, or person that cannot stand up to CLOSE scrutiny, you are better off without.
I am not a Theologian, but 'I don't think that God is a Theologian, either.' Meaning, I don't believe you need a Degree in order to approach God.
I am merely a 'Seeker after the Truth.'

Regards,

Jeeter

Hog, by "form", I meant intelligence, beneficence, etc.

Since there is no way of analyzing the supernatural (even with respect to the "creations" in the natural world, otherwise my initial argument is reinstated as effective) there can be no argument as to whether the creator is intelligent or compassionate or any other attribute that is commonly touted. The supernatural is a haze of possibilities that can never be given a second thought as to detail since you will be using your knowledge of the natural world to form those thoughts.

No, If one supposes a supernatural creator, anything is possible, so he may exist outside of his own laws but, again, a practical understanding of that being is impossible.


*To add to my initial post*

At the base of everyone's beliefs is what we each choose to find awe inspiring, I choose the complexity of nature. And if it turns out there is a god that will judge me, he ought to notice that I worship his work in the most profound way, that I exalt the abilities of reason and inquisition that he has bestowed on me, to the best of my ability, and never sacrificed my personal convictions to conform to someone else conception of him. If I'm to be punished for that, I will take it gladly.

Russel, thanks for taking the time to answer our posts in a thoughtful, non-condescending manner. Even though our views differ, I have enjoyed the discussion.

Russell, what of the heart? the spirit? the soul? are these only natural as well? Are we only collections of matter and energy that are guided by scientific laws? Is ours just a question of strict materialist versus supernatural possibility?

I don't think it would be strange at all that a supernatural creator would give his creation something by which to discover him outside of the natural.

I had heard the word before, Creator, but never so beautifully mouthed than by a very thoughtful and soft spoken Cherokee woman with the most gentile southern accent

I believe in a Creator. I used to be ate up with a fearful Christianity, one that i partially invented in my mind, radio preacher filled n the rest. It was an escapist fantasy that I was able to overcome. I have studied these materials all my life, trying many paths. Sometimes i just forget and go off on tangent, maybe even become destructive for a while.

I know that anthropomorphizing god is inaccurate. I think he knows each one intimately better than we know ourselves. In my mind the Creator is the source for everything. If you want to be separated you will be separated. It is entirely possible these desires are deep in the psyche, seldom reaching conscious thought

often we think of perfection as a total lack of error. In nature there must be errors, mistakes. This is because life feeds on life, there is tension. I see god as both creator and destroyer. tat is a balance all things must reflect, i don't necessarily mean equal portions, only a balance. That is perfection, we are surrounded by it.

Originally Posted by norman931

Well, to me that is like saying my lungs, my liver, and my left ventricle are "Me." The way I look at it, all those things are a part of me, just as nature is a part of God.

To put a rigorous definition on what you mean, or as I understand your statement; God is in the background of all of the workings in nature. Yes?

This still leaves a supernatural god because the word "natural" implies that we would be able to detect him with a natural instrument like an electron microscope or something. Whereas a supernatural being might still be an integral part of his creations but is outside of the realm of inspection by our means.

I don't intend to say your wrong, just clarifying the verbiage that is used to clarify these discussions.

And yes, I absolutely enjoy these discussions, Norm. I try very hard to not convince anyone of my points, just that they are valid points to be made. Kindness is met with kindness in turn, I appreciate not being spoken down to as well.

Originally Posted by norman931

Russel, thanks for taking the time to answer our posts in a thoughtful, non-condescending manner. Even though our views differ, I have enjoyed the discussion.

This was and is one of the intentions of this thread! Thank you for noting it!!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

To put a rigorous definition on what you mean, or as I understand your statement; God is in the background of all of the workings in nature. Yes?

This still leaves a supernatural god because the word "natural" implies that we would be able to detect him with a natural instrument like an electron microscope or something. Whereas a supernatural being might still be an integral part of his creations but is outside of the realm of inspection by our means.

I don't intend to say your wrong, just clarifying the verbiage that is used to clarify these discussions.

And yes, I absolutely enjoy these discussions, Norm. I try very hard to not convince anyone of my points, just that they are valid points to be made. Kindness is met with kindness in turn, I appreciate not being spoken down to as well.

The problem (as I see it) with your statement rests in this:
God is defined as being someone that does not have to adhere to natural laws.

Am I correct in this?

Then how about a God that is NOT outside of those laws but merely has an infinite greater knowledge of how those laws work. He doesn't work ABOVE those laws...but WITH and THROUGH those laws.

Besides that he loves us.

(That'd be a close description of the God I've gotten to know)