[Gary Wassner]

Not sure that it does, Fung. If I understand you correctly, you want us to consider God a being or concept that transcends nature. If so, how do we conceive of this thing?

[Fung Koo]

If you're having a discussion on faith, then it has to be personal. That's been the position of those that don't believe as well as those that do believe in God this whole time, right?
In part, yes. But the critical difference here that is framing this entire discussion is whether or not subjective truth (personal) has objective validity (impersonal). In otherwords, personal fantasy versus factual history.

A discussion of what I believe and what You believe will only determine that I believe what I believe and that You believe what You believe. The discussion does not, however, ascertain whether or not either one of our personal beliefs are objectively true. That's what Gary means when he says that the conversation can't even begin on the basis of personal belief. We all know we all believe what we believe -- this does nothing to advance the argument. Does God objectively exist? What makes scripture different from any other story?

The position of the atheist is that if the relationship with God is entirely personal, then it has no objective reality, and is therefore fantastical/delusional on the part of the believer. Belief/faith is thus a willful act. It is equivalent to believing in any other fantasy, and therefore not real.

The position of the theist (faithful/believer) is that the personal relationship with God exists because God is objectively factual. The evidence, it is generally claimed, is both subjective and objective. Some argue that the two are equivalent and/or interchangeable. Some argue that the objective quality is obvious in its own right, and personal belief simply shapes the way one believes. But in the end, God remains objectively real (in otherwords, you aren't really just praying to yourself, there's actually someone/something listening, and you're not nuts).

So if you are stating that belief in God/faith is an entirely personal discussion, in the classic dichotomy then you are actually atheist.

If, however, you are stating that belief in God in an entirely personal choice, then you're claiming that God exists objectively. Further, that denying the existence of God (choosing to be other than the truth) is in fact the delusion.

So what's your assessment? You have stated that you believe God exists. Is that because you personally believe it, or is it because you have chosen to believe it?

[Gary Wassner]

You're a devil, Fung..... ;)

[Fung Koo]

Not sure that it does, Fung. If I understand you correctly, you want us to consider God a being or concept that transcends nature. If so, how do we conceive of this thing?
There's a little more implied with the substitution of "super-" for "supra-" -- Think "inter-" and "intra-."

It isn't considered a leap of faith to believe in "imagination." I can say, with a fairly high degree of certainty (oh dang it, not that word again), that the imagination exists. Objectively, I can do it myself demonstrably for you (I think -- and questions of originality entirely beside the point). We would call this "supranatural," I think, because it exists both within/between and above us. It is simultaneously conceptual and material, both subjective and objective.

Therefore, let's say, for arguments sake, that God is "supranatural" as opposed to "supernatural." Rather than placing him outside of our existence, we place with within/between AND above us. This allows God to hold both conceptuality and materiality.

From that, does this not change the entire idea that to believe in God is a leap of faith?

[Gary Wassner]

And how much really does this differ from Pantheism? Just a variation it seems to me. Consciousness isn't the issue in the concept, is it?

[Seak]

In part, yes. But the critical difference here that is framing this entire discussion is whether or not subjective truth (personal) has objective validity (impersonal). In otherwords, personal fantasy versus factual history.

A discussion of what I believe and what You believe will only determine that I believe what I believe and that You believe what You believe. The discussion does not, however, ascertain whether or not either one of our personal beliefs are objectively true. That's what Gary means when he says that the conversation can't even begin on the basis of personal belief. We all know we all believe what we believe -- this does nothing to advance the argument. Does God objectively exist? What makes scripture different from any other story?

The position of the atheist is that if the relationship with God is entirely personal, then it has no objective reality, and is therefore fantastical/delusional on the part of the believer. Belief/faith is thus a willful act. It is equivalent to believing in any other fantasy, and therefore not real.

The position of the theist (faithful/believer) is that the personal relationship with God exists because God is objectively factual. The evidence, it is generally claimed, is both subjective and objective. Some argue that the two are equivalent and/or interchangeable. Some argue that the objective quality is obvious in its own right, and personal belief simply shapes the way one believes. But in the end, God remains objectively real (in otherwords, you aren't really just praying to yourself, there's actually someone/something listening, and you're not nuts).

So if you are stating that belief in God/faith is an entirely personal discussion, in the classic dichotomy then you are actually atheist.

If, however, you are stating that belief in God in an entirely personal choice, then you're claiming that God exists objectively. Further, that denying the existence of God (choosing to be other than the truth) is in fact the delusion.

So what's your assessment? You have stated that you believe God exists. Is that because you personally believe it, or is it because you have chosen to believe it?

Well, since you've put me into a corner, and I don't think I'm crazy :eek:, I have chosen to believe it. Thank you for clarifying my response.:o

[Gary Wassner]

Corners are what this thread is all about Seak! The longer you post here, the more you'll realize that. And corners are great. They limit your way out and that makes you think better.

[Seak]

Then kudos to the thread idea.

[Fung Koo]

And how much really does this differ from Pantheism? Just a variation it seems to me. Consciousness isn't the issue in the concept, is it?
I'm not trying to conceptualize just God as "supra"natural, but to rejigger the entire conception of the "supernatural." Going on the assumption that this existence is -- for all intents and purposes -- the only existence that there is, then to believe in the "super"natural is undeniably a leap of faith.

The trouble is, we don't really have a conceptual term that validates objectively verifiable intangibles. Imagination was one example, but physical forces come into this realm, too. Gravity does not "exist," per se, as it is conceptual. There is no verifiable objective thing which we can point to a label it "Gravity" -- it's an effect/force/whatever. So in that sense, it's a "super"natural thing. It's "more than" we can grasp, and it's "more than" we can see.

But, it's also an irrevocable part of our understanding of the universe, and we know it exists. "Supra-" can be defined as "above, beyond, before, over" etc, and going with the Latin etymology it also suggests "connection" -- whereas "Super-" suggests separation.

If we imagine something like clairvoyance as "super"natural, it becomes a phenomenon of an alternate spiritual realm that exists externally to mundane existence. But we know that what we call clairvoyance -- believe in it or not -- is basically just projection. That is, there is still a "conscious" element to it, where decision making and logic are involved. It's projective hypotheses, but with an added "supernatural" flair.

We can, however, relegate clairvoyance, gravity, God, imagination, right/wrong, etc, in the realm of our existence by insisting that they are not "super"natural, but "supra"natural. That is, these are elements of our nature -- the only existence we know.

If a discussion about the nature of existence of God is to bear any fruit, or to come to any conclusion about his objective existence, should we not dispense with the assertion that God must necessarily be somehow divorced from us? Surely he is not supernatural, but supranatural.

[Gary Wassner]

Ditto my last post...... :)