God’s real modern name is Gap. So says religions and science.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But why do you want to personify this ideology by giving it a proper name?

All the Gods are personified because their attributes have always been expressed by people so personification is normal.

God is an ideal person in fiction and the ideals we follow have all come from humans so to not personify our ideals and Gods would be silly. God cannot be a worm as we cannot emulate a worm but can emulate a personified God, and all religions basically want us to emulate their Gods.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Is the ideal ideology you follow from a worm or a person?

Regards
DL

 

[Jobar]

I would say that the best word to describe the god being discussed here is mystery. There have been mystery religions for many thousands of years- gods wordless, nameless, and without Earthly connection. The Deist notion of God was intended to provide an ultimate mysterious creator, who wound up the clockwork of the universe and set it running, untouched thereafter.

Granted that we don't presently have a scientific theory which explains the origin of matter/energy/space/time, so there's still a gap there where a god might be posited. But if some brilliant physicist comes up with a set of equations that explains how reality began, that would close up that gap. Where then would the believers find a place to put their god, do you suppose?

If god(s) are only an ever receding mystery, then there is no reason to think they actually exist.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I would say that the best word to describe the god being discussed here is mystery. There have been mystery religions for many thousands of years- gods wordless, nameless, and without Earthly connection. The Deist notion of God was intended to provide an ultimate mysterious creator, who wound up the clockwork of the universe and set it running, untouched thereafter.

Granted that we don't presently have a scientific theory which explains the origin of matter/energy/space/time, so there's still a gap there where a god might be posited. But if some brilliant physicist comes up with a set of equations that explains how reality began, that would close up that gap. Where then would the believers find a place to put their god, do you suppose?

If god(s) are only an ever receding mystery, then there is no reason to think they actually exist.

No argument on that, but the religious will always ignore facts as that is not what keeps them in religions.

If it was, the fact that the mainstream Gods are such evil and immoral pricks would have already driven them out.

This link shows what we should be thinking of those people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But why do you want to personify this ideology by giving it a proper name?

All the Gods are personified because their attributes have always been expressed by people so personification is normal.

God is an ideal person in fiction and the ideals we follow have all come from humans so to not personify our ideals and Gods would be silly. God cannot be a worm as we cannot emulate a worm but can emulate a personified God, and all religions basically want us to emulate their Gods.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Is the ideal ideology you follow from a worm or a person?

Regards
DL

My ideal ideology would be a set of principles. Making up somebody to embody those principles is a pointless and unnecessary step and it would add unecessary confusion and obfuscation to any discussions I had about them if I were to do so.

To help cut through your obfuscation, let me ask - do you think this god of yours is real? As in, is do you feel that there is an actual being which exists in the universe external to us who is the embodiment of this ideal ideology or is there only our individual internal conceptions of this ideal and we each have our own gods, none of which exist outside of our minds?

You seem to go back and forth between the two from sentence to sentence and I’m curious which of those actually conforms to your belief system.

 

[Jobar]

I would say that the best word to describe the god being discussed here is mystery. There have been mystery religions for many thousands of years- gods wordless, nameless, and without Earthly connection. The Deist notion of God was intended to provide an ultimate mysterious creator, who wound up the clockwork of the universe and set it running, untouched thereafter.

Granted that we don't presently have a scientific theory which explains the origin of matter/energy/space/time, so there's still a gap there where a god might be posited. But if some brilliant physicist comes up with a set of equations that explains how reality began, that would close up that gap. Where then would the believers find a place to put their god, do you suppose?

If god(s) are only an ever receding mystery, then there is no reason to think they actually exist.

No argument on that, but the religious will always ignore facts as that is not what keeps them in religions.

If it was, the fact that the mainstream Gods are such evil and immoral pricks would have already driven them out.

This link shows what we should be thinking of those people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL

I agree that most believers hold their faiths emotionally more than intellectually. But IMO some considerable percentage of them feel the need to justify their faith intellectually- or at least to find a gap which allows them some wiggle room, a chance to claim their belief is rational.

Yes, there are some like Kurt Wise, who Dawkins referred to in that video. But if there were no gaps at all where a god might be wedged in, no rational justification whatsoever- I would hope that sort of iron-pated anti-intellectual would eventually go the way of the dodo.

 

[humbleman]

God’s real modern name is Gap. So says religions and science.

Have all free thinkers and the religious settled for a Scientific and divine God of the Gaps?

Religions are now recognizing evolution as part of their God of the Gaps ideologies. Science seems to fail to recognize their own God of the multiverse Gaps, before the Big Bang, where their laws break down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ

Religions are here to stay, however; so is science. Religions will just have to learn to live with this.

Governments and the secular world, which have to act in a non-believer way, --- separate of church and state, --- have also had science cast much doubt about the efficacy and morality of all the Gods.

Thanks to all the Gods for our Socio-democratic secular legal systems which puts all theistic laws to shame.

A human created ideology, secular law, is proving itself to be better overall than what all the Gods offer us. That is why even the religious follow the secular and not the theistic law.

Humankind is the God of the Gap. Humans have filled the Gap, and God is best defined as a human being. Do you agree or as Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

We are all driven by our instinct to be the fittest human beings possible. We do so, through laws and rules of conduct which are all man made. God is redundant and remains a drain on the progress of our civilizing ourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

We all have the same God of the Gaps. So why are we fighting?

Regards
DL

You have understood nothing.

What religion has recognized "evolution"?

Does the bible recognizes it? I don't think so. The Muslim writings recognized it? Ha, you can bet on that... Lol.

Any Chinese religious writings recognizes it? Hello?

You can say, "some religious denominations" because not all religious denominations accept the story of evolution.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

And look at the best ignorance found in your secular insight:
You said

Governments and the secular world, which have to act in a non-believer way, --- separate of church and state, --- have also had science cast much doubt about the efficacy and morality of all the Gods. ... secular law, is proving itself to be better overall than what all the Gods offer us. That is why even the religious follow the secular and not the theistic law.

Ah, what a waste from your part. If religious people obey the law of the land is because if they don't do so then they will pay penalties or go to jail.

In countries were the law of the land is the same than the law of their religion, then people are obeying the laws of their religion. Simple deduction.

Do you think that religious people obey laws from a secular government because its laws are "better" than religions laws? ha ha ha ha... It is clear that you were absent the day the teacher was giving the class of "how to think in order to avoid saying incongruousness".

Religious people obey secular laws because secular laws are the ones imposed by the secular government. That's all.

I will tell you about "gaps"

Gaps are the spaces, lack of intermediary fossils between the chronological order of the species, and gaps are the ones which discard credibility in the evolution theory. Gaps. No intermediary evidence, no intermediary fossils, this is what makes evolution theory incomplete, and an incomplete theory is an invalid theory. Gaps invalidate the evolution theory.

There you have your Gaps.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You have understood nothing.

Funny, coming from you.

What religion has recognized "evolution"?

Catholics, right up there in the front. Most of the ones who do not jealously insist that Genesis be taken literally...

Does the bible recognizes it? I don't think so.

If you don't take it literally, it does. In fact, there's regularly someone trying to shoehorn the verses of scripture into their understanding of evolutionary theory. Their grasp of both can lead to quite amusing attempts...

Gaps invalidate the evolution theory.

No, they really don't. That's not how theories work.
The theory is presented as the best explanation we have so far for the evidence we've observed so far.
Gaps don't make any impact on the theory's explanatory power.

I mean, if I find a cabinet of files, and drawer one has the A, B, C and D files, drawer three has J, K, L, M, and N, and drawer five has T, U, V, W, XYZ, I can conclude that the files are arranged in alphabetical order, even if I cannot open drawers 2 and 4.
PERHAPS, when we do find the contents of 2 and 4, we'll be surprised. Maybe 2 has E, O, G, Q. PERHAPS, someone will have to come up with a better story about how they're arranged. Maybe... But we'll need that evidence to actually be presented before we have invalidated the 'alphabetical order' theory.
The gap, however, does not yet invalidate it.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

[

QUOTE=Gnostic Christian Bishop;508444]

But why do you want to personify this ideology by giving it a proper name?

All the Gods are personified because their attributes have always been expressed by people so personification is normal.

God is an ideal person in fiction and the ideals we follow have all come from humans so to not personify our ideals and Gods would be silly. God cannot be a worm as we cannot emulate a worm but can emulate a personified God, and all religions basically want us to emulate their Gods.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Is the ideal ideology you follow from a worm or a person?

Regards
DL

My ideal ideology would be a set of principles. Making up somebody to embody those principles is a pointless and unnecessary step and it would add unecessary confusion and obfuscation to any discussions I had about them if I were to do so.

Where did you get those principles that form your ideal ideology if not from your own observations and other people?

That answer is the same with me. That and other reasons is why I personify it under the heading of God, just as the ancients did.

That tradition guides me, and since even atheists are now starting churches, and I recognize the few benefits of local churches, I feel it is an appropriate use of that word. I cannot convert the more foolish believers if I throw out their nomenclature from the get go.

They need more guidance than non-believers so it serves me better to use their wording and not another's.

To help cut through your obfuscation, let me ask - do you think this god of yours is real?

As an ideal of rules and laws and a mental construct of those that I personify, yes indeed. That is why when a Gnostic Christian is asked to name his God, he will say, I am, and mean himself.

As in, is do you feel that there is an actual being which exists in the universe external to us who is the embodiment of this ideal ideology or is there only our individual internal conceptions of this ideal and we each have our own gods, none of which exist outside of our minds?

This last as I put above. I should read ahead.

You seem to go back and forth between the two from sentence to sentence and I’m curious which of those actually conforms to your belief system.

My belief system is that the only entity fit to be a God for man is a man.

That man will be an esoteric ecumenist and that trait is quite high in Gnostic Christianity, Karaite Jewry and Buddhism.

We all put man above the Gods that mankind has created, which are all the Gods.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I would say that the best word to describe the god being discussed here is mystery. There have been mystery religions for many thousands of years- gods wordless, nameless, and without Earthly connection. The Deist notion of God was intended to provide an ultimate mysterious creator, who wound up the clockwork of the universe and set it running, untouched thereafter.

Granted that we don't presently have a scientific theory which explains the origin of matter/energy/space/time, so there's still a gap there where a god might be posited. But if some brilliant physicist comes up with a set of equations that explains how reality began, that would close up that gap. Where then would the believers find a place to put their god, do you suppose?

If god(s) are only an ever receding mystery, then there is no reason to think they actually exist.

No argument on that, but the religious will always ignore facts as that is not what keeps them in religions.

If it was, the fact that the mainstream Gods are such evil and immoral pricks would have already driven them out.

This link shows what we should be thinking of those people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related

Regards
DL

I agree that most believers hold their faiths emotionally more than intellectually. But IMO some considerable percentage of them feel the need to justify their faith intellectually- or at least to find a gap which allows them some wiggle room, a chance to claim their belief is rational.

Yes, there are some like Kurt Wise, who Dawkins referred to in that video. But if there were no gaps at all where a god might be wedged in, no rational justification whatsoever- I would hope that sort of iron-pated anti-intellectual would eventually go the way of the dodo.

I am firmly on your page.

I am not sure it will happen thanks to conflicting information.

I see some that shows a tipping point of belief to non-belief at around 2050 while other information says that religions will never die.

If they do live, I hope they smarten up and it looks like we are doing that in spite of religions if we measure ourselves by our moral actions. This link from Dawkins shows that we are heading in the right direction, but that does not mean that I will relent in my efforts to put many nails into the religion coffin. My hate, born of love for my fellow man, will not let me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLulcfyqrc0

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What religion has recognized "evolution"?

Most, but I only have documentation for the largest Christian group.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html

The Pope believes in evolution and put's God in the Gap ahead of it.

If religious people obey the law of the land is because if they don't do so then they will pay penalties or go to jail.

The U.S. touts itself as one of the most Christian countries in the world, yet has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Many Christians seem to like to break the law and pay penalties or go to jail.

Why are so many of your fellow Christians following your God's laws?

In countries were the law of the land is the same than the law of their religion, then people are obeying the laws of their religion. Simple deduction.

Quite true. Do you like to see those countries throw gays from high buildings band stone women, not the men, for fornication?

Do you think that religious people obey laws from a secular government because its laws are "better" than religions laws? ha ha ha ha... .

I think so, but if you prefer to think that your ilk would prefer stoning unruly children and fornicators or just people who wear teo different fabrics, then you show how little moral sense and how much moral; guidance you really need.

Regards
DL