Homo you say ‘god’ then you say ‘God’ which are you talking about? Because
‘god’ does not = ‘God’
two different meanings
And this is what I think. Some people don’t cross over into the world of theologty, they stay in religion. Theology is the science that trys to makes sense of religion. Religion needs no rational ground to make sense to anybody but theology requires it. So this could just become a silly arguement that will never end…
Yes. The Hindhus have 10,000 of them. Are you admitting then that you cannot prove that god exist?
I am asking for a difinition of what you mean by god. You take to much for granted. If you cannot prove that he/she/it exists then the question of non-existence is moot.
Do cows fly?
“Homo you say ‘god’ then you say ‘God’ which are you talking about? Because
‘god’ does not = ‘God’
two different meanings”
If you read my post carefully you will note that I capitalized the first word in the sentence. It is a grammatical rule with no special significance given to the word god.
You should also know that in Hebrew there are no capital letters. Your point is irrelevent. God is god or G-d or g-d or G, no matter how you look at it.
Homo, Good thing were not speaking in Hebrew right? Why do you operate in the bounds of Hebrew when you clearly are capitalizing many words??? ‘god’ in philosophical context means just more than ‘God’ or a supreme being or entity. Look at the Ontological Proofs from Anselm of Canterbury and you will clearly find more than one definition for the word ‘god’ so it is quite relevant.
I am assuming that that, the hebrew god, is the god that you are referencing as God. If so, then the original context is very important. Anselm is refering to Jesus not the god of the Israelites, ergo the question, “which god?”?
When a Christian says god they mean the triumvate. There is no such thing in Hebrew theology.
I am simply asking for clarity and you insist on side stepping the issue and assuming that it should be clear. That is sermonizing but it is not a debate. Can you even think man?
You have committed an enormous no no. You are speaking in defiance of real live genuine “experts”. They have been good enough to condescend to exchange with you in the attempt to show you the error of your ways but you seem completely oblivious of it and apparently without any gratitude whatsoever of the sacrifice being made in your behalf.
Why ask for clarity when all you have to do is to accept what is being provided for you and bliss will be around the corner? When you begin to see the trouble you are causing, maybe then you may experience some remorse.
You will find no ‘experts’ here. We’re all seekers. Your posts reflect a certain amount of confusion or obfuscation, it’s hard to tell. Your statements and questions don’t match up very well. Additionally, perhaps one of your difficulties is reading for comprehension. You have received several responses to your questions that are quite clear and understandable to others that apparently have gone right over your head.
Please take the time to re-read some of the posts. No one is trying to pick on you, but you are making it very difficult to see what it is you’re about.
I do not feel picked on. Why would you even say such a thing?
The question I believe is 'Does God exist?" The answer is in part, it cannot be proven, but, but, if you are asking a figurative question and mean it as an intellectual construct, then the answer could very well be yes. If, you are trying to make a statement rather than ask a question, “Does God exist” rhetorically then, to ask “what do you mean by God” is a fair question indeed. But, then again, if you are being sarcastic it is obvious that the answer you would expect is a RESOUNDING AND EMPHATIC NO!
I say the answer depends on what you mean by god. “What do you mean by god”? Clearer?
Homo “I say the answer depends on what you mean by god. “What do you mean by god”? Clearer?” good you see what I’ve been asking. And that was the point of Anselm…plus you may be thinking of the wrong thing with Anselm. The idea “greater than which nothing nothing can be conceived.” is what I am saying it gives 2 interpretations of the word ‘god’. ‘god’-is a perfect being or god- is Being, Being is perfect-ing. That is the question I have asked you. You said there was only one and I give you 2.
“There is no such thing in Hebrew theology.” or does that matter. If you are not going to operate in the bounds of theology and stay in religion you have very little philosophical ground to operate on. Clarify this for me. Please. Because if you are going to stay in the religion side then I am done debating with you because with in you methodology you will always be right and I will feel right in mine. I like arguing over spilled milk. POINTLESS.
This may come as an enormous surpirse to you but Judaism is not a religion. Secondly, you took my statement, “There is no such thing in Hebrew theology.” out of its context and then reinterpreted it to agree with you. I was specifically refering to the Trinitarian view of god. If you are going to quote me please do so accurately. I would appreciate that. And lastly, you are demanding a very narrow view of thelogoy and religion that is self serving. Those lines are at best blurred. Study, theology, and practice, religion, go hand in hand.
“You said there was only one and I give you 2.”
Again, you misquote me. I never said this.
A few weeks back I started a thread asking that very question. What do you mean when you say God?
There were as many definitions as there were posts. That is the point. Everyone here has their own perspective on that term. Some of us may have very similar ideas, but that is happenstance, not proof of anything. I do believe I posted a fairly clear picture of my concept of God in another thread where you asked the same question - several times.
Perhaps part of the problem is that, occasionally, the tone of a thread is discussion, not debate with rigorous definition. Sometimes a few of us write in the sense of, not the definition of.