The No God god

[joshuagenes]

Rich is man who believes in the No God god. He does everything that make a god a god to other men. He has faith in the idea there is no God and this idea is his god. He fights for his god, he defends his god, he has dogma and beliefs that reflect his no God god, and absolutely will not accept even the remotest possibility of any other God/gods. If a spade is a spade by any other name...does Rich have a god?

[phil1882]

saying no god is your god is like saying bald is a hair color. it's the oppsite of hair color. its the oppisite of having a god.

[joshuagenes]

I made further clarification when I stated "He has faith in the idea there is no God and this idea is his god." The idea that there is no God very much exists whether or not God himself exists. Also the definition of what defines a god to men also exists. If Rich says he has no god but his actions, his values, and his beliefs say otherwise, what are we to believe? If a god is defined as the root and foundation of a mans values and beliefs. Is the definition of what a god is to man inescapable? Have I not stated "He does everything that makes a god a god to other men." The paradox lays between the reality of what Rich truly believes and the definition of what a god is. I am not playing with words.

[phil1882]

"He has faith in the idea there is no God and this idea is his god"

it's not faith if you base it on reason and evidance. i have yet to see a single piece of evidance for God's existance. nor is there any self conistant logical argument that leads to him existing.

...but his actions, his values, and his beliefs say otherwise, what are we to believe?

what action could a person take other than a confession of his beliefs that would convince you he belives in God?

there is no way to read a person's mind yet., so we have no way of knowing whether he belives or not.

maybe he goes to church out of some obligation to the community, maybe he prays not to a god but to his doctor or lawyer, maybe he just wants attention, or the oppsiite, doesn't want to be an outsider.

I

f a god is defined as the root and foundation of a mans values and beliefs. Is the definition of what a god is to man inescapable?

does god create the rules? if so then how do you know whether or not god has changed his mind recently and has ordered people to kill?

or do the rules exist prior to God? if so then what do you need god for?

[joshuagenes]

Dear Phil, you argue so passionately against the existence of God. You fight for this belief, you defend this belief, and you espouse dogma in accord with this belief. You are so emotionally bound up that each of your responses it is as if you didn't actually read or understand what I had actually written. I have not argued for or against the existence of God but simply exposed the paradox between Rich's belief and the definition of what makes something a god to men. Stop begging the paradox and going off on these tangents. Address the paradox logically, consistently, and within the proper context. Okay Rich? I mean Phil.

[phil1882]

firstly you're the one that started going off on tangents. i was merely addressing your tangents.

God is normally defined as a omnipotent, omnipresent being capable of answering prayers,

if you redefine God as any basis for moral judgement; then yes i can't argue against the existence of such a God;

since God could be used to mean anything in this context. someone who bases their moral beliefs in communism is equally valid in calling communism God, as someone who bases their moral beliefs in capitalism.

but most people do not think of God as someone who merely sets he rules and then doesn't interfere. and as I said even if God did set the rules, how would you know whether such a God has changed them recently?

.

[joshuagenes]

My questions were meant to stir conversation within context of the paradox. The concept of god or gods has always been the basis for moral judgement of men. As to the properties of omnipotent, omnipresent, and being able to answer prayers, these are said to apply to some gods and not to others. Take Artemis as an example, the reason her followers gave that she could not protect her temple in Ephesus from being burned to the ground was that she was off overseeing the birth of Alexander the Great. She was not omnipotent or omnipresent as to the prayers she received concerning fertility I am sure her answers were close in line with the probabilities. And yes you are correct communism and capitalism can both be made gods.

As to your question about knowing whether god had changed the rules on you recently, that would depend of who your god is as well as your understanding of this god. If you are Muslim and hold the Koran as your guide to Allah then you would see god as having stated abrogating and non-abrogating verses. Which means he changed his mind often throughout the time that the Koran was written or having known the future he lied about it the first time. If your God is defined by the truth then what he says cannot be changed. However imperfect people's understanding may change and this will appear as if God has changed the rules. Likewise if a contract has been made between two parties with a stipulation that if the terms of the contract are met a new and better contract will replace the old contract... then the rules will have changed but these rules are governed by higher law and higher truth which have not changed. How do you know anything in this world? You see, you taste, you touch, you hear. If you see a tree in the distance but you don't know what kind it is but on closer inspection you see apples then you know that it is an apple tree if it had pears it would be a pear tree. If it produced good fruit it would be a good tree if it produce bad fruit or no fruit it would be a bad tree. By a tree's fruit you know the tree. For you to know whether the thing that you, Rich, or other men have made a god has changed the rules on you recently or not is to first be humble because you are a fallible human being and appearances are deceiving, next hold the thing that has been made god up to the light of the highest order truth and test it's fruit.

Now back to the paradox! What are all the ways this paradox might be resolved?

[phil1882]

Now back to the paradox! What are all the ways this paradox might be resolved?

my suggestion would be to hold the paradox up to the highest order truth, and test it's fruit.

here, again, it seems to me you've defined God so loosely that there's no real counter argument to existence.

i cannot, by your definition, base my moral beliefs in reality, without calling reality God. And again, i would go to the dictionary, look up the meaning of the word God, and use that instead.

[joshuagenes]

Now your learning Grasshopper. If you look in the dictionary you will find a number of meanings for each word. This is because in making a dictionary they took manuscripts and determined the definition of words from the contexts in which they were used. What was written in the manuscripts were people's experiences both real and imagined. The words in a dictionary are defined with other words in the same dictionary and are meaningless without experience, truth, reality. Weak definitions only apply to narrow contexts. Strong definitions encompass great contexts. Weak definitions are drawn from narrow experience. Strong definitions are the silver thread that connect much common experience. The dictionary is a great tool for understanding the meanings of words but is subordinate to the understanding that created the dictionary in the first place. Here again is the theme of seeking the higher order truth. You would be misapplying this wisdom if you used the dictionary as your understanding. The dictionary is just a tool, a jumping off point for understanding the meanings, ideas, and experiences that shape our world. It is a beginning not an end!

[bonanova]

Rich is man who believes in the No God god. He does everything that make a god a god to other men. He has faith in the idea there is no God and this idea is his god. He fights for his god, he defends his god, he has dogma and beliefs that reflect his no God god, and absolutely will not accept even the remotest possibility of any other God/gods. If a spade is a spade by any other name...does Rich have a god?

If Rich uses "No God" as an adjective, that names his god.

Faith, fighting, defenses, dogmas, intransigence and playing cards don't affect this.

[Kikacat123]

I would not really say that Rich's belief that there is no God is his god. In the past, many have had ideas that they put their faith in and defend, such as the idea that slavery is bad or that women should be allowed to vote. However, those beliefs were not the people's gods. They were simply things that they believed were right. I believe in God, so I think that Rich "has" a God but does not believe that He exists. The question is sort of paradoxical.

[iSpelBadlie]

Sort of like saying, "This sentence is blue."

[joshuagenes]

Rich is man who believes in the No God god. He does everything that make a god a god to other men. He has faith in the idea there is no God and this idea is his god. He fights for his god, he defends his god, he has dogma and beliefs that reflect his no God god, and absolutely will not accept even the remotest possibility of any other God/gods. If a spade is a spade by any other name...does Rich have a god?

If Rich uses "No God" as an adjective, that names his god.

Faith, fighting, defenses, dogmas, intransigence and playing cards don't affect this.

I was trying to move beyond semantics and address the deeper realities.

[joshuagenes]

I would not really say that Rich's belief that there is no God is his god. In the past, many have had ideas that they put their faith in and defend, such as the idea that slavery is bad or that women should be allowed to vote. However, those beliefs were not the people's gods. They were simply things that they believed were right. I believe in God, so I think that Rich "has" a God but does not believe that He exists. The question is sort of paradoxical.

It is possible that people can make their beliefs into gods by upholding them above God in their lives. God is a title and position. In Christianity is says that God puts his word above his name. This is to say truth before title. If something holds that position in your life does it not also retain the title attributed to that position?

[avie]

Honestly I think whether you acknowledge that you believed in a God or not, you have a good.

 

See, there's more than one way to define a "God" which in some cases is described as an idol or something that passionately believed in, follow, and conjure up faith for. So yeah I think even Rich has a God because there's something in his life that he holds in a form of reverence or higher than himself.

[The_unbeliever]

Rich is man who believes in the No God god. He does everything that make a god a god to other men. He has faith in the idea there is no God and this idea is his god. He fights for his god, he defends his god, he has dogma and beliefs that reflect his no God god, and absolutely will not accept even the remotest possibility of any other God/gods. If a spade is a spade by any other name...does Rich have a god?

Substitution jutsu!

Rich is man who believes in the chocolate-flavored cookie.
He does everything that make a cookie a cookie to other men.
He has faith in the idea there is chocolate-flavored and this idea is his cookie.
He fights for his cookie, he defends his cookie, he has dogma and beliefs that reflect his chocolate-flavored cookie, and absolutely will not accept even the remotest possibility of any other cookie/cookies.
{If it barks and has fur, is it a dog?} [For the love of strawberries], does Rich have a cookie?

"no god" -> chocolate-flavored
      "god" -> cookie

Jokes aside, your point is good, but you'd be better of ditching out the term "God". "Ideal" would work fine here (cookies were NOT my first substitution - I hate reading or hearing "cookie" (substituted) too many times in a row)

"If one has his own set of beliefs, would that qualify as having a form of religion?"
->The answer would depend on one's own definitions, and as such, is a pointless question which holds no third-party answer that would benefit to the one asking.

It is, however, a good question to ask oneself; as this was the basis for the creation of many religions schools of thought - History says so.

Edited September 25, 2015 by The_unbeliever

[phaze]

My reading of the definition of a deity is that that have authority over some aspect of nature (or that they have absolute authority over everything). People tend have a limited form of authority but ideas do not, unless they prove to be the truth. Rich does not have a deity until such time as he can convincing prove to the observer that no deity exists.  It is my understanding that this will be much harder to prove than proving I'm not currently eating gummy bears. This means it is very difficult (if not impossible) to prove that a paradox actually exists.

[Liar]

Couldn't he have just been defending his idea and belief and not a specific God. He just called it no God God because he wanted to.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Liar