What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Age]

You don't take much interest in zoology do you.

Do you yet know what separates human beings from all of the other animals?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

Now, studying animals as though because the majority might act or behave in 'some way/s' never means that all animals must act or behave in the 'exact same way/s'.

Human culture differs from the cultures of other animals because human language allows for abstractions from immediate events and situations.

True, all animals don't act in exact same ways. However the natural world does include all animals including the human , and also includes vegetable and mineral forms of existence.
When I say "the environment" I mean the total environment. Within the total environment all sentient life can and does suffer.

So, what are 'you', as an adult human being, actually 'suffering' from, exactly?

[Age]

But, 'I' had not forgotten that. So, why did 'you' believe 'I' did?

By the way do 'you' even know what the words 'I' and 'you' are even referring to, here, exactly?

If yes, then, 'Who am 'I', and, 'Who are 'you', exactly?

I know a line of thought is to be ignored when it refers to changing definitions of well defined words.

And, since you have not expressed your definitions for the, apparent, well defined words, then this might well imply that your line of thought, here, refers to a changing definition of the apparent well defined words, which is why 'we', literally, have to ignore your own line of thought, here.

Also, that you "yourself" have ignored answering, and as such are hiding your own line of thought, here, actually shows and proves just how much out of line and/or changed 'your own thinking' and definitions are here, from the already 'well established definitions'.

If you have special non-dictionary definitions for those common words, let's hear them.

So, 'I' ask 'you' to provide any definition for those common words, but you provide absolutely none, apparently so because you have special non-dictionary definitions, but then you go on to ask 'me' that if I have so-called 'special non-dictionary definitions' to then express them.

1. Why did 'you' even begin to presume 'I' had such?

2. Why ask 'me' to do what you have blatantly refused to do "yourself"?

3. you appear to have absolutely no clue nor idea at all as to what the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is, exactly, or at all.

But 'you' are obviously free to show and prove otherwise.

[Age]

I don't know if you can truly veto your instincts, but your love biases and hate biased are there to help you reach your best possible end.

Besides 'death', what is your best possible 'end', exactly?

Death with dignity verses something less.

What does so-called, 'death with dignity', actually entail, exactly?

[Belinda]

Do you yet know what separates human beings from all of the other animals?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

Now, studying animals as though because the majority might act or behave in 'some way/s' never means that all animals must act or behave in the 'exact same way/s'.

Human culture differs from the cultures of other animals because human language allows for abstractions from immediate events and situations.

True, all animals don't act in exact same ways. However the natural world does include all animals including the human , and also includes vegetable and mineral forms of existence.
When I say "the environment" I mean the total environment. Within the total environment all sentient life can and does suffer.

So, what are 'you', as an adult human being, actually 'suffering' from, exactly?

Do you ,or do you not ,agree the world is full of suffering?

[Belinda]

Besides 'death', what is your best possible 'end', exactly?

Death with dignity verses something less.

What does so-called, 'death with dignity', actually entail, exactly?

Look it up on Google.

[Age]

Human culture differs from the cultures of other animals because human language allows for abstractions from immediate events and situations.

True, all animals don't act in exact same ways. However the natural world does include all animals including the human , and also includes vegetable and mineral forms of existence.
When I say "the environment" I mean the total environment. Within the total environment all sentient life can and does suffer.

So, what are 'you', as an adult human being, actually 'suffering' from, exactly?

Do you ,or do you not ,agree the world is full of suffering?

1. 'The world', itself, is neither 'full off suffering', nor 'full of no suffering'.

2. Animals may well so-call 'suffer' in physical pain, at times.

3. Children of the human species do not so-call 'suffer' anywhere as much as the adults do of that species.

4. Besides in the rarest of occassions when adult human beings are actually suffering from physical pain, which a certain amount of time exists in imagination only or is just self-inflicted pain anyway, all of the other perceived pain and/or perceived suffering is not 'suffering' itself, at all and is just because those so-called adults have not yet 'grown up' nor 'matured' yet. (Which is funny to watch play out and observe because when they were 'children' they were more 'grown up' and more 'mature' in regards to so-called 'suffering' and to even the 'understanding', itself, here.)

And, as always, for any one who would like the irrefutable proofs for this, or who would like to just challenge or question me over this, then let 'us' have a discussion.

[Belinda]

So, what are 'you', as an adult human being, actually 'suffering' from, exactly?

Do you ,or do you not ,agree the world is full of suffering?

1. 'The world', itself, is neither 'full off suffering', nor 'full of no suffering'.

2. Animals may well so-call 'suffer' in physical pain, at times.

3. Children of the human species do not so-call 'suffer' anywhere as much as the adults do of that species.

4. Besides in the rarest of occassions when adult human beings are actually suffering from physical pain, which a certain amount of time exists in imagination only or is just self-inflicted pain anyway, all of the other perceived pain and/or perceived suffering is not 'suffering' itself, at all and is just because those so-called adults have not yet 'grown up' nor 'matured' yet. (Which is funny to watch play out and observe because when they were 'children' they were more 'grown up' and more 'mature' in regards to so-called 'suffering' and to even the 'understanding', itself, here.)

And, as always, for any one who would like the irrefutable proofs for this, or who would like to just challenge or question me over this, then let 'us' have a discussion.

For someone whose name is 'Age' you must have lived a very sheltered life! If those are your observations of life as it is then so be it.

[Age]

Death with dignity verses something less.

What does so-called, 'death with dignity', actually entail, exactly?

Look it up on Google.

Once again, a claim is made, here, in a 'philosophy forum' by 'some one', who I ask for elaboration on and/or clarity on from 'their perspective', only, to only then be told to go 'look 'it' up' somewhere else.

It is like 'these people', here, back then, did not yet realise that if one makes a claim, the it is up 'to them' to back 'it' up and support 'the CLAIM', itself, by "them" 'self'.

Otherwise 'I' could come, here, in this philosophy forum and claim that God does, or does not, exist, and then if absolutely anyone were to question and/or challenge me I could just as easily and simply say, ' go look 'it' "yourselves" ', as well.

But, hopefully to most people the ridiculousness and absurdity of saying such a thing is blatantly obvious.

Once again I will say that if one has not yet obtained the actual irrefutable proof for any claim that they want to make, here, in a public forum, and they can not provide nor produce 'that proof' "themselves", then I suggest that it is much, much better, for them, that they do not make the claim, at all.

As this is a philosophy forum it would be wise for 'us' all to expect to be critiqued, challenged and/or questioned over absolutely every word that 'we' say and write, here

'I', for One, certainly do actually look forward to being critiqued, challenged, and questioned over absolutely every words that 'I' say and write, here. 'I' know 'I' am certainly ready and wanting to be critiqued, challenged, questioned, and Corrected over absolutely every word that 'I' say and write, here.

[Age]

Do you ,or do you not ,agree the world is full of suffering?

1. 'The world', itself, is neither 'full off suffering', nor 'full of no suffering'.

2. Animals may well so-call 'suffer' in physical pain, at times.

3. Children of the human species do not so-call 'suffer' anywhere as much as the adults do of that species.

4. Besides in the rarest of occassions when adult human beings are actually suffering from physical pain, which a certain amount of time exists in imagination only or is just self-inflicted pain anyway, all of the other perceived pain and/or perceived suffering is not 'suffering' itself, at all and is just because those so-called adults have not yet 'grown up' nor 'matured' yet. (Which is funny to watch play out and observe because when they were 'children' they were more 'grown up' and more 'mature' in regards to so-called 'suffering' and to even the 'understanding', itself, here.)

And, as always, for any one who would like the irrefutable proofs for this, or who would like to just challenge or question me over this, then let 'us' have a discussion.

For someone whose name is 'Age' you must have lived a very sheltered life! If those are your observations of life as it is then so be it.

If this is what you want to believe is true, then okay.

Now, if you would like also like to believe that 'the world', itself, is full of so-called suffering, then,

1. Will you provide a list of some of these so-called 'sufferings', which you want to claim that you have observed?

2. If no, then why not?

3. you must have had a very hard or difficult 'upbringing:, hitherto, if you are actually 'currently' believing that 'the world' is full of suffering.

4. There is no correlation at all between having the username "age", here, and 'my observations', and 'must have' lived a so-called 'sheltered life'.

5. If you list what you claim to be experiences of 'suffering', then 'we' can 'look onto' 'seeing' if they are circumstances of 'actual suffering', or if they are just people's Wrong perceptions and interpretations, or not.

[ThinkOfOne]

I don't know if you can truly veto your instincts, but your love biases and hate biased are there to help you reach your best possible end.

I do not see wisdom in ignoring either.

I bet you that you cannot come up with a plausible scenario to prove your theory.

Show how you would veto your love for your mate, or the hate that you would have against what has him or her in jeopardy.

Your views are simplistic. Those having self-centered/selfish views typically also have simplistic views, so that comes as no surprise.

As but one example, you say, "your love biases and hate biased are there to help you reach your best possible end". Do you think that there is nothing to sayings such as: "blinded by hatred"? "blinded by love"? What do you think they mean?

Being able to be fooled or blinded by ones thinking and emotions can happen.

I may be thinking simplistically, but I have logic and reason and all you have is opinion without argument.

Better simple than stupid.

You keep making one false assertion after another. I keep showing you how they are false.

For example, in my previous post, I pointed out the absurdity of your assertion that " "your love biases and hate biased are there to help you reach your best possible end". Clearly that is not true. Clearly that is not why they are there.

Interesting that you believe that you have "logic and reason". If that were true, you'd understand that your assertion that "all you have is opinion without argument" is false. Clearly whatever "logic and reason" that you possess is also simplistic. It's a by-product of holding simplistic views.

Even more amusing is your claim: "Better simple than stupid". Consider the term "simple-minded". Stupid is as stupid does. Why have you "settled for what you are"?

[Janoah]

Living entities [single-cell to complex animals] had been living spontaneously for billions of year to the present without the term 'law of nature'.
Humans had also lived for hundreds of thousand of years spontaneously without the term 'laws of nature'.

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

You're right that, in the conventional scientific framework, laws like gravity are treated as existing independently and "discovered" by scientists. That's how empirical science works—and it's extremely effective.
However, there are nuanced deep philosophical views to the above common sense, convention and philosophical realist views.
You have to widen your thinking vista.

I would not waste any more time disputing the fact that the real law of nature is immutable and therefore does not depend on anything.

I like Kant's statement,
"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me [the law of nature] and the moral law within me."

[Janoah]

I don't feel God in my heart. I almost always feel like a wretch. I wish I could feel God's presence.

Conscience is commonly called the voice of God in man.
A person strives for what brings him gladness.
"and [true] gladness for the upright in heart" (Psalm 97)

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You make a number of assertions about Jesus. By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

What, that the intentional ground of being would be Love? What else would it, They, be? I don't doubt Jesus' sincerity for a moment, or his mother's, aunt's, uncle's, father's, cousin's, culture's, ancestors', disciples', story tellers'. They all acted in good faith. Apart from the helplessly unenlightened ruling class. Who acted in fear and greed. And if the ground of being were Love, and Jesus were Love incarnate, then the story would be completely true. Preserved by the Holy Ghost. But the truth of it would not be. Because it's not a Love story. It's a human, cultural story reaching for Love, whether it's there or not. The God of the Bible, no mater how He evolved, is not Love. God, Love, would be universally, competently, transcendently, better than that fundamentalist God we see in our Bronze-Iron-Classical age projection. Only liberated covertly by Barth and prior outsiders, especially MacDonald. And by the emergent late last century and early this.

C'mon Martin. You made a number of assertions as to what you believe Jesus had in mind. I had fully understood that you believe much of the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around Jesus' words. To understand what Jesus had in mind, you need to understand HIS words.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

Sorry ThinkOfOne! Missed this. Tho' I fired off a few shots at you downstream. Can never resist a target of opportunity.

I believe none of the mythology of the NT, including in Jesus' words. But I grant the best of will to him, in his delusion, that he propagated to the Church. I understand Jesus words just fine thank you. And to re-use ammunition from below the post to which I'm replying, it's grandiose of you to question that, with some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'. That you could possibly know something I don't. I take him at his word. I don't believe any claim by or about him. Utterly sincere tho' I grant, in all best possible will.

His claims are inadequate for Love. His suicide mission is inadequate for Love. They worked for enough people at the time and still do. I will not settle for less than Love. Competent, transcendent Love. Of which there is no trace.

[ThinkOfOne]

What, that the intentional ground of being would be Love? What else would it, They, be? I don't doubt Jesus' sincerity for a moment, or his mother's, aunt's, uncle's, father's, cousin's, culture's, ancestors', disciples', story tellers'. They all acted in good faith. Apart from the helplessly unenlightened ruling class. Who acted in fear and greed. And if the ground of being were Love, and Jesus were Love incarnate, then the story would be completely true. Preserved by the Holy Ghost. But the truth of it would not be. Because it's not a Love story. It's a human, cultural story reaching for Love, whether it's there or not. The God of the Bible, no mater how He evolved, is not Love. God, Love, would be universally, competently, transcendently, better than that fundamentalist God we see in our Bronze-Iron-Classical age projection. Only liberated covertly by Barth and prior outsiders, especially MacDonald. And by the emergent late last century and early this.

C'mon Martin. You made a number of assertions as to what you believe Jesus had in mind. I had fully understood that you believe much of the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around Jesus' words. To understand what Jesus had in mind, you need to understand HIS words.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

Sorry ThinkOfOne! Missed this. Tho' I fired off a few shots at you downstream. Can never resist a target of opportunity.

I believe none of the mythology of the NT, including in Jesus' words. But I grant the best of will to him, in his delusion, that he propagated to the Church. I understand Jesus words just fine thank you. And to re-use ammunition from below the post to which I'm replying, it's grandiose of you to question that, with some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'. That you could possibly know something I don't. I take him at his word. I don't believe any claim by or about him. Utterly sincere tho' I grant, in all best possible will.

His claims are inadequate for Love. His suicide mission is inadequate for Love. They worked for enough people at the time and still do. I will not settle for less than Love. Competent, transcendent Love. Of which there is no trace.

C'mon Martin. There's a distinction that needs to be made between what Jesus said about Himself and what Christianity says about Him. You keep referring to "[Jesus'] claims" whilst referring to Christianity's claims about Jesus. They are NOT one and the same. Try going through my earlier posts with that in mind. Hopefully the penny will drop for you.

It has nothing to do with "some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'". It has to do with reading comprehension skills.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

C'mon Martin. You made a number of assertions as to what you believe Jesus had in mind. I had fully understood that you believe much of the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around Jesus' words. To understand what Jesus had in mind, you need to understand HIS words.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

Sorry ThinkOfOne! Missed this. Tho' I fired off a few shots at you downstream. Can never resist a target of opportunity.

I believe none of the mythology of the NT, including in Jesus' words. But I grant the best of will to him, in his delusion, that he propagated to the Church. I understand Jesus words just fine thank you. And to re-use ammunition from below the post to which I'm replying, it's grandiose of you to question that, with some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'. That you could possibly know something I don't. I take him at his word. I don't believe any claim by or about him. Utterly sincere tho' I grant, in all best possible will.

His claims are inadequate for Love. His suicide mission is inadequate for Love. They worked for enough people at the time and still do. I will not settle for less than Love. Competent, transcendent Love. Of which there is no trace.

C'mon Martin. There's a distinction that needs to be made between what Jesus said about Himself and what Christianity says about Him. You keep referring to "[Jesus'] claims" whilst referring to Christianity's claims about Jesus. They are NOT one and the same. Try going through my earlier posts with that in mind. Hopefully the penny will drop for you.

It has nothing to do with "some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'". It has to do with reading comprehension skills.

I've made that distinction transparently clear, but it can't be made so for you in your grandiose trollery. I have a reading age of about 200. And I read you clear.