Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Immanuel Can]

He wouldn't be "deceiving" others. As you say, those others would be psychotic or charlatans, as you say. I'm just suggesting that it's quite possible not all of them are that.

I mean why would he talk to only some people but not talk to others, thus deceiving them into believing that he doesn't exist?

Well, in the first place, God's not obligated to talk to anyone. But if He does, He gets to choose the time, the place and the method that best reveals the truth about Himself, doesn't he? You do, when you communicate -- and nobody accuses you of deception when you do.

Or, hidden with that heap of claims, you might find some truth. But you'll never know if you don't dig through the pile.

Well I tried to some degree but didn't find anything.

I had a go. And I found what I was looking for.

Must run, but back soon. Hold that thought.

[Nick_A]

Simone Weil wrote:

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

The way in which I read this topic being discussed leads me to believe that those who understand how the essence of religion and the goals of science are logically united must remain a small minority.

Socrates said "I know nothing" and Jesus said "Without me you can do nothing"

Without the experience of our limitations there is no incentive to grow. People who believe they know and can do are simply not open to admit the reality of the human condition in relation to the potential for human being.

Of course the Way is open but if the majority remain closed to it, having the experience of the unity between the objective facts of science and objective values stressed in the essence of religion is impossible the the battle over opinions spawned from imagination reigns supreme.

As a result the man animal or humanity as a whole will follow the natural cycles of nature as described in Ecclesiastes 3 including the cycle of war and peace,

[Atla]

Well, in the first place, God's not obligated to talk to anyone. But if He does, He gets to choose the time, the place and the method that best reveals the truth about Himself, doesn't he? You do, when you communicate -- and nobody accuses you of deception when you do.

Doesn't really matter what humans do, from a God I would see this as unnecessarily deceptive, unjust.
Or maybe his powers are weak and he can only contact a few people

I had a go. And I found what I was looking for.

Like what? (I hope it's not Pascal's wager)

[Immanuel Can]

Well, in the first place, God's not obligated to talk to anyone. But if He does, He gets to choose the time, the place and the method that best reveals the truth about Himself, doesn't he? You do, when you communicate -- and nobody accuses you of deception when you do.

Doesn't really matter what humans do, from a God I would see this as unnecessarily deceptive, unjust.

Why?

Where would it be written that God owes everyone to speak to him/her audibly? Why wouldn't it be fair for God to speak, say, Scripturally? Or why would it be unjust for Him to speak to you through somebody who already knows God...like a prophet or a Christian, say? Or why would it be unfair for God to manifest Himself in nature, as indeed He does? Or what if God were Himself to incarnate...could He do that? If He's the Supreme Being, it would be impossible to suppose He couldn't...

There are many ways God could choose to speak. Why would we think we could dictate to Him what He "owed" us? Who says He owes us a private audience and a personal revelation, when He's already done all the things above? That would seem kind of demanding, wouldn't it?

And if we can demand that, then who's really "God" there?

Or maybe his powers are weak and he can only contact a few people

Then, by definition, you would not be talking about God. And if you weren't, then what would it matter whether or not that entity said anything at all?

I had a go. And I found what I was looking for.

Like what? (I hope it's not Pascal's wager)

No. I gave God an honest, even chance to convince me personally. And He did. I just started looking, reading the Bible, and I saw. Above all, I saw Jesus Christ, for the first time, as a person. There isn't a better person to lead one, really.

[Atla]

Why?

Where would it be written that God owes everyone to speak to him/her audibly? Why wouldn't it be fair for God to speak, say, Scripturally? Or why would it be unjust for Him to speak to you through somebody who already knows God...like a prophet or a Christian, say? Or why would it be unfair for God to manifest Himself in nature, as indeed He does? Or what if God were Himself to incarnate...could He do that? If He's the Supreme Being, it would be impossible to suppose He couldn't...

There are many ways God could choose to speak. Why would we think we could dictate to Him what He "owed" us? Who says He owes us a private audience and a personal revelation, when He's already done all the things above? That would seem kind of demanding, wouldn't it?

And if we can demand that, then who's really "God" there?

Then God is deceptive trash, void of goodwill, and only people lacking in character will kiss his ass.

Then, by definition, you would not be talking about God. And if you weren't, then what would it matter whether or not that entity said anything at all?

That's one definition. If he is omnipotent but deceptive then, again, he is trash and what does it matter what he says?

No. I gave God an honest, even chance to convince me personally. And He did. I just started looking, reading the Bible, and I saw. Above all, I saw Jesus Christ, for the first time, as a person. There isn't a better person to lead one, really.

I also read the Bible and was raised as a Christian very early in my life. I believed in God for a while and he turned out to never be there.
Later I realized that there are dozens/hundreds/thousands of other gods who also just don't seem to be there. (If I had kept depending on God, and hadn't taken matters into my own hand, I would probably already be dead, actually, but that's beside the point.)

[Eodnhoj7]

Why?

Where would it be written that God owes everyone to speak to him/her audibly? Why wouldn't it be fair for God to speak, say, Scripturally? Or why would it be unjust for Him to speak to you through somebody who already knows God...like a prophet or a Christian, say? Or why would it be unfair for God to manifest Himself in nature, as indeed He does? Or what if God were Himself to incarnate...could He do that? If He's the Supreme Being, it would be impossible to suppose He couldn't...

There are many ways God could choose to speak. Why would we think we could dictate to Him what He "owed" us? Who says He owes us a private audience and a personal revelation, when He's already done all the things above? That would seem kind of demanding, wouldn't it?

And if we can demand that, then who's really "God" there?

Then God is deceptive trash, void of goodwill, and only people lacking in character will kiss his ass.

Then, by definition, you would not be talking about God. And if you weren't, then what would it matter whether or not that entity said anything at all?

That's one definition. If he is omnipotent but deceptive then, again, he is trash and what does it matter what he says?

If he is omnipotent and sees through illusion, and we are made in his image and can see through illusion, then that is not really deceptive now is it considering we share the same qualities of judgement making through reason?

No. I gave God an honest, even chance to convince me personally. And He did. I just started looking, reading the Bible, and I saw. Above all, I saw Jesus Christ, for the first time, as a person. There isn't a better person to lead one, really.

I also read the Bible and was raised as a Christian very early in my life. I believed in God for a while and he turned out to never be there.
And if he was there you would complain that he won't leave you alone.



Later I realized that there are dozens/hundreds/thousands of other gods who also just don't seem to be there. (If I had kept depending on God, and hadn't taken matters into my own hand, I would probably already be dead, actually, but that's beside the point.)

Yeah and the savior element, resurrection story, heaven/hell, cross symbolism, and similar moral laws are reflected in many of them. It is the same story in constant variations.

[Atla]

If he is omnipotent and sees through illusion, and we are made in his image and can see through illusion, then that is not really deceptive now is it considering we share the same qualities of judgement making through reason?

If we really could see through this kind of illusion then everyone would believe in the same God and there would be no debate, now would there.

And if he was there you would complain that he won't leave you alone.

Only if he's trash.

Yeah and the savior element, resurrection story, heaven/hell, cross symbolism, and similar moral laws are reflected in many of them. It is the same story in constant variations.

Just human psychology manifesting.

[Eodnhoj7]

If he is omnipotent and sees through illusion, and we are made in his image and can see through illusion, then that is not really deceptive now is it considering we share the same qualities of judgement making through reason?

If we really could see through this kind of illusion then everyone would believe in the same God and there would be no debate, now would there.

People cannot agree with which song they like best, but they enjoy music. They may see one tree from different angles but still point to a tree.

And if he was there you would complain that he won't leave you alone.

Only if he's trash.

But do you view yourself as trash?

Yeah and the savior element, resurrection story, heaven/hell, cross symbolism, and similar moral laws are reflected in many of them. It is the same story in constant variations.

Just human psychology manifesting.

And the word psychology comes from "pscyhe" meaning soul. You are basically saying "just the soul manifesting".

[Atla]

People cannot agree with which song they like best, but they enjoy music. They may see one tree from different angles but still point to a tree.

And God isn't needed for that tree.

But do you view yourself as trash?

I'd say about 30% trash 70% okay.
It used to be around 20-80 back when I still had faith in humanity, and was still trying.

And the word psychology comes from "pscyhe" meaning soul. You are basically saying "just the soul manifesting".

Word game, strawman.

[Eodnhoj7]

People cannot agree with which song they like best, but they enjoy music. They may see one tree from different angles but still point to a tree.

And God isn't needed for that tree.

And neither is the tree needed...

But do you view yourself as trash?

I'd say about 30% trash 70% okay.
It used to be around 20-80 back when I still had faith in humanity, and was still trying.
So what you are saying is your faith in humanity is how you see God(s)?

And the word psychology comes from "pscyhe" meaning soul. You are basically saying "just the soul manifesting".

Word game, strawman.
No...just basic dictionary definitions and root meanings of words.

Strawman in using the strawman.

[Atla]

And neither is the tree needed...

Whether or not the tree is needed, God is already out of the picture so that's that.

So what you are saying is your faith in humanity is how you see God(s)?

No?

No...just basic dictionary definitions and root meanings of words.

Strawman in using the strawman.

More nonsense. I won't use an outdated, root meaning for psychology, just because you are afraid of psychology.

[Eodnhoj7]

And neither is the tree needed...

Whether or not the tree is needed, God is already out of the picture so that's that.

Really because you just said God.

So what you are saying is your faith in humanity is how you see God(s)?

No?

So there is no correlation between your changing faith in man and your changing faith in God?

No...just basic dictionary definitions and root meanings of words.

Strawman in using the strawman.

More nonsense. I won't use an outdated, root meaning for psychology, just because you are afraid of psychology.

Take it up with those who translated it.

[Tesla]

Power loss for 5 hours. I went and seen the new joker movie and came back to examine how your discussion is moving along.

I'm only a little disappointed that it seems impossible for those who are religious philosophers here the be able to examine the idea of God outside of their religions. Using words like 'he' instead of it.

please examine yourselves in light of that. it shows the inability to think rationally without the religion you practice warping your vision.

To teach God in schools to determine its potential reality in a testable real world scenario requires looking at what God is. I must apologize to my earlier friend who posted about one potential scientist explore.

So where or what does God or God(s) look like?

is our universe an atom in its being? if so, whats the chance of establishing communication? is it an alien species far advanced from our own? if so, why would it not communicate openly? could it be an elf that moves faster than the speed of light? i like that one. that would be cool. it would definitely explain Santa Clause.

What technology is needed to find the answer? light speed? time travel?

[Atla]

Really because you just said God.

You play this word game for 5-year-olds again.

So there is no correlation between your changing faith in man and your changing faith in God?

No not really. I believed in humanity for 20 more years.

Take it up with those who translated it.

I don't have to, most people living in the 21st century are content with using the language of the 21st century.

[Tesla]

Really because you just said God.

You play this word game for 5-year-olds again.

So there is no correlation between your changing faith in man and your changing faith in God?

No not really. I believed in humanity for 20 more years.

Take it up with those who translated it.

I don't have to, most people living in the 21st century are content with using the language of the 21st century.

lol you've read sophist by plato? What I like about Eod is that he is a prime example. The goal with him should be to attempt to get him to abandon sophistry and see what would happen if he was arguing for a truth instead of arguing to win. he has his value.