romansh

22 minutes ago, thormas said:

... it is never about evidence, sufficient or otherwise; evidence is not a consideration and doubt always plays its part. 

And, for some it isn't a game: the belief, say theism, with abiding questions, is an attempt to understand existence and live it. 

This is where we are coming from very opposite points of view.

Without evidence we have no understanding of existence to reconcile.

Well I have found all these isms are a bit more complicated and have various flavours.

Here is my Belief Bubbles from a theistic point of view. For the sake of argument we can include all the deism flavours in theism as well.  I drew up several years ago. Today I would redraw it a bit but I gives you an idea. I would fit into the weak agnostic category.

Now personally I find myself in a position of seeing insufficient evidence for a belief or disbelief in some non-descript god like Love Being etc . I can discount the existence for a personal type of God for all intense porpoises. Moving beyond the supposed divine, even relating to the profane I do not know how to be absolutely certain. There is always some residual doubt. But I am forced to act or to play the game. I have no choice, but to play. Do I know this? Perhaps not but it seems a reasonably accurate picture.

Joseph recently posted Living with Uncertainty and I could not help identify this as a form of agnosticism.

Anyway being of an agnostic persuasion made, it made sense or most of it, I think.

Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell  a poster boy for atheism (and agnosticism) which parallels Joseph's line of thought. Perhaps the quote is a bit more aggressive than Joseph's

• “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

and another from Russell

• I think nobody should be certain of anything. If you’re certain, you’re certainly wrong because nothing deserves certainty. So one ought to hold all one’s beliefs with a certain element of doubt, and one ought to be able to act vigorously in spite of the doubt…. One has in practical life to act upon probabilities, and what I should look to philosophy to do is to encourage people to act with vigor without complete certainty.

Now I personally would not call uncertainty,God, Love or Being.

My head is beginning to spin here Thormas.

Letting be is love or God? Now in effect, I cannot do anything about that speck of dust. If by letting be you mean Joseph's acceptance then I sort of get it. But letting be a starving child in Africa that I have and never will meet, that is Love?

What is the point of a panentheist god that lets be does not interfere, apparently Loves and Lets Be?

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Why would God become very limited? 

Christianity believes that God is the Creator of all that is. Although this is theistic language, another approach is that God is 'I AM' - Being - and as Paul writes, we live, move and have our being in God/Being. Some theologians also use philosophical language to further 'define' Being as 'letting be' i.e. empowering/enabling all to be - in other words, creation. Christianity also believes that God is Love, thus Christians believe, not only that the universe (and all) is created out of love, they believe Love created it (God is what he does). Thus we have God/Love creating and in all creation. 

 

OK I am talkin definitions here rather than Christian beliefs.

The universe was created out of Love so cancer was created out of Love as well ... in that Love is acting in all creation all the time. There is Love acting on a speck of dust between galaxies: really?

23 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually, although second nature for me also, it was an act of caring or concern taught to me, by example and in word, from when I was very young. Love in Christian circles is defined as 'compassionate concern' for the other: so indeed it is love - I know so.

Do I take this God [as Love] simply becomes a very limited. Love created this universe? Really? I must admit I am struggling with this definition of God being Love and in all creation.

My take on Joseph's view is that his God  is close to being a pantheistic God. The universe and what we might not have observed is God. No separation between the universe and God so to speak.

For me:

Acceptance:   Understanding things could not be otherwise, despite the many alternatives we can imagine for the past, present and future.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎01 at 11:57 AM, JosephM said:

What do you think?

Mixed feelings.

I don't have enough information to give a considered opinion. The delivery of the announcement was incompetent though.

Apparently the US military discriminates on IQ ... personnel must have an IQ of at least 85. So the military discriminates against about 16% of the population. Apparently it is written into legislation.

20 hours ago, thormas said:

Do you think cancer is loving or, conversely, that love is cancer? I must disagree with you there??.

Not at all; but it is in or of creation.

So at very best Love is acting in some bits of creation at some moments of time. Where is the Love of/for some mote of dust on the far side of the moon.

Quote

the woman you hold the door for

For me it is generally second nature and not limited to women. Love? I don't think so.

Love is acting in creation [cancer]

For you Love seems to be some ethereal phenomena.

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎22 at 0:31 PM, thormas said:

I would suggest there are no moments when God is not acting in humanity and in creation.

Removing the double negative ... this translates to God [Love] acts in humanity and in creation in all moments.

So Love is acting in cancer at all moments.

To me this seems a very unusual position.

Your parent analogy does not work in that I would posit parents don't love the cancer for one single moment. Perhaps they even hate?

So the Love is not in all creation?

Hmmmn

Love is acting in all creation and all the time. That would put Love in cancer, in hate, lust and all the things we consider negative.

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎23 at 3:52 PM, thormas said:

No, for who would suggest that cancers are creative, life enhancing or loving.

And yet you implied God is everywhere and Love?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40758498/trump-to-police-don-t-be-too-nice

What disturbed me was the police officers behind Trump laughing and applauding.

On ‎2016‎-‎07‎-‎24 at 2:48 PM, Burl said:

If God chooses Trump as a divine vessel it will be undeniably obvious.

Burl ... is this an anthropomorphization of God?

Six months in ... how is God's divine vessel doing?

11 hours ago, Burl said:

Yes and no.  Both/and.  God is a superset containing both plus much which is not understood.

Just curious does this superset containing much that we don't understand have an or intents inn general?

Thormas  so when you said there are no moments when God is not acting in humanity and in creation. Is this "Love" a proximate cause for the cancers etc that beset humanity and creation in general?

2 hours ago, Burl said:

It is more accurate to say that nothing, animate or inanimate, exists outside of God.

Are the animate and inanimate somehow separate from God? Are they one? (That is lower case o)

3 hours ago, romansh said:

So are there moments in time this first mover is not acting on, within or between? And why just people?

My question again  ... are there times when this first mover (God) does not act? And does it act on the inanimate? ... This is sort of in line with Thormas' answer.

2 hours ago, Burl said:

No, this is description not definition.

No Burl; think of this as a request for clarification.

29 minutes ago, thormas said:

I would suggest there are no moments when God is not acting in humanity and in creation.

For you is there any separation between God, humanity and creation?

My understanding of your Being probably mot?

34 minutes ago, Burl said:

Holy Spirit is a specific term for God acting directly on, within or between people.

So are there moments in time this first mover is not acting on, within or between? And why just people?

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎13 at 4:38 PM, Burl said:

58 minutes ago, Burl said:

From my viewpoint, evangelization is the work of the Holy Spirit.  YMMV.

 

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎13 at 4:38 PM, Burl said:

Holy - a thing with God-like qualities.

Spirit/Spiritual the antithesis of death

 

Burl ... So here we have a combination Holy Spirit ... ie some sort of antithesis of death with God-like properties. Unless of course the combination of these words takes on a completely new meaning, which of course is possible?

23 hours ago, thormas said:

We have discussed upper case before and I believe I provided my rationale. 

Quite but here's an example of you discussing being and Being:
 

Quote

 

The essence of being is the dynamic 'letting be' of beings.

Being 'lets be' all that is (which includes the universe - all that is, i.e. beings). There is (only) One - but I will offer the words of the man who introduced me to Philosophy (and Being) in 1970: : there is not a multiplicity of beings (in Being, there is only {one} Being) but there is a multiplicity of persons in the One).

 

Being a bear of little brain, this I found difficult.