How do you conceptualise god?

[OMG12]

Just that really. Atheist, believer or agnostic what do you think of when someone says god? Not a judgement about existence, what concept comes to mind, if you’re a believer (of any faith) how do you conceptualise your god (inc in the plural and feminine)

Harry Potter is imaginary but people could provide a detailed description of him beyond “he’s imaginary”.

Yes, but even before the films existed, Harry Potter's appearance was clearly described in the books. As far as I'm aware, the bible doesn't say 'God is a pulsing ball of light' or 'The Lord, with his long white beard, aquiline nose and cool eyebrow piercing said "Let there be light!" '. So it's a bit of a different case.

Bible literalists still believe the universe was created in 7 days and Noah built an ark and put a pair of every creature on it and that Jesus rose from the dead. Real people, holding down jobs and raising families in the 21st century! Thick as mince.

More sophisticated Christians (most of them) say "of course, those stories are just metaphorical but not the one about the resurrection which I will base my life around." Thick as mince.

To Christians it is. I'm aware that you won't want to engage with any of the actual theological discussion around the points you are raising. All I'm saying is that there is a certain arrogance in stating that because you don't understand something it must be categorically untrue, in spite of a rich and academically valid vein of research and discussion by unquestionably intelligent people. I understand that there is an element of trolling in what you are saying though so will remove myself from the discussion now!

Christians think it is = tortological argument. If the Bible is good evidence of its own "truth", then the Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita are equally good evidence.

They are all just books that claim to be true and make a series of fantastic claims about the nature of reality. Even if one of them is true, none of them provide good evidence that their "truth" is actually true.

How is that more arrogant people who think their particular religion/ belief/ interpretation is the only right one?

Tautological!

All religions have an element of a "leap of faith", hence the word faith. It's a matter of personal belief. Large chunks of the Bible are historically verified but obviously things like the Resurrection will always be a matter of faith. If you don't have it, fine. Just don't dismiss everyone who does as stupid.

No, I will continue to dismiss everyone who believes in such obvious nonsense on the basis of faith as stupid, thanks, as it is a stupid belief.

The Bible is an incredibly complex document with a firm grounding in historical fact.

Not the existence of god bit though. I mean... Harry Potter has a grounding in historical fact, in that it's based in real places, mentions some real events etc. It's just that magic and wizards don't exist.

Yes, exactly - there are lots of historic facts in the Bible - the names of countries and kings, the folk customs and laws. But that doesn't mean that the supernatural claims it makes are any more true.

I was correcting your historical inaccuracy which you were using to formulate your. ”argument”. This might give you a better idea of the development of early Christianity. It’s an extremely simplified overview but gives you an idea.

is the world flat? Well, what they mean by “the world”? Was it the same concept we have now? Separate from the respect of the universe or a small part of it, or indeed the whole universe? Because the universe is “flat”.

The holographic universe theory again would suggest reality is 2d not 3d. Many people might think of this as “flat”.
but scientists eh?? What do they know?

Depends how you read these ideas, were flat Earthers behind or ahead of the times?

This is also a very good way of putting it. Humans exist on stories and narratives. When we can’t square circles of the chaos we have to live in and have no control over it causes cognitive dissonance which is incredibly painful and then there are any number of life experiences which are beyond torturous. Having a very simple concept in religion to explain these ideas helps that part of the human brain that seeks out understanding during times of great suffering. Then there are the ritual practices that were deeply steeped in cultural practices where they originated like dogs being haram when at that time likely dogs carried disease which killed people and so avoiding them was healthy, or hygiene practices/rituals when people got seriously ill and died from diseases etc Religion has been a very very good answer to a lot of these issues for a lot of people.

The history of Christianity has no relevance to the general truth or otherwise of a god or gods.

It doesn't really matter what believers precisely believe. The nature of religion is basically a belief in something fantastical with no good evidence.

Were flat earthers incorrect? Yes, they were incorrect. Clue: the word "Earth". The Earth is round.

There’s actually a few descriptions of God in the Bible.

Well the etymology of the word “Earth” means ground (suppose it rhymes with round, also found, mound..,,)

what’s your take on the holographic universe theory? Are those scientists as “thick as mince”?

I provided the history of the development of Christianity because of the following positions you claimed;

1. that all Christian’s believed God impregnated a woman and that Jesus was reincarnated in the flesh - when I said that not all Christians believed in this you them set out the position outlined in 2 below
2. that Christian’s had altered what they thought (true) but the mistake you made was saying that those changes moved from essentially universally believing in the position outlined in the Nicene Creed to positions rejecting that position. I pointed out that actually these views predated the Nicene creed. Therefore, your position that the rejection of the incarnated son of god was borne out of (I assume) more scientific (prob post Enlightenment) thought was factually incorrect.

Oh and “flat earthers” I think, is probably anachronistic

I have no idea if the holographic universe theory is true. I don't have the knowledge of physics to test the theory. However, the scientists who posit it give their good rational reasons why it might be, and ask others to confirm or reject their theory through the scientific process. Science is inherently ready to be proven wrong.

Religious thinkers insist that they are right, and use evidence to confirm their beliefs because "I have faith that it is true."

I am very happy to say I don't know the truth of the universe. The arrogance is entirely in those who believe they do because they read an old book that has the secret!

Argue better:

1. I never said "all Christians" believe anything. As mentioned, Christians believe all kinds of nonsense. I'm not here to keep track of what different believers believe. I said "Christians believe...", which they do.

2. It's irrelevant if, in this specific case, some Christians rejected some particular Bible verses. There are still plenty of examples of Biblical "truth" being superceded by scientific knowledge.

Nope. Plenty of idiots believe literally that the Earth is flat:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/flat-earthers-what-they-believe-and-why/

I imagine God to be exactly like Brian Blessed and he frequently face palms and gets wound up when he sees humans fuck up and he wishes he hadn't given us free will.

There is a Mrs God who is like the character Daisy (Judy Cornwall) the sister of Hyacinth Bouquet and she often has to soothe God with kind words and she fusses around him making him cups of tea and getting his dinner ready.

Sorry that up there ^ should have said...

Religious thinkers insist that they are right, and even use a lack of evidence to confirm their beliefs because "I have faith that it is true."

I suggest you look up the word “anachronistic”.

What I referring to was older descriptions of the world being flat, together with scientific theories about a 2d universe.

Let’s look at theories of God/divinity as being the same thing. Can you prove them wrong?

By saying “Christian’s believe…” not “some Christian’s believe” a lack of a qualifier would indicate you meant it to apply to all. Even in the face of evidence you refuse to acknowledge your poor hypothesis are incorrect- not very scientific.

Which examples of “biblical truth” are you referring to. You might want to do some research about biblical interpretation first particularly looking at the original Hebrew and Greek, the interplay between ancient societies, Gematria and Jewish, Summarian and Greek mysticism to name some of the things the people “as thick as mince” look at to search for the truths in the bible.

I love that

Can you prove them wrong?

You appear to have no understanding of logic or reasoning. No, I can't prove the negative "there is no God." It's incumbent on those who postulate an extraordinary to show their evidence. I don't have to prove that there's no God any more than you have to prove that there's or no Yeti or no Krishna.

Are you seriously suggesting that an ancient belief that the Earth was flat is consistent with the modern theory of the holographic universe? What is your evidence for that?

Oh and “flat earthers” I think, is probably anachronistic

My interpretation of this sentence was that you didn't believe anyone believed in "flat Earth" any more - that it was an anachronism. I don't need to look up any words in the dictionary, thank you.

By saying “Christian’s believe…” not “some Christian’s believe” a lack of a qualifier would indicate you meant it to apply to all. Even in the face of evidence you refuse to acknowledge your poor hypothesis are incorrect- not very scientific.

I would be astonished if you would be able to tell me what all Christians believe. Christians are self-defined. Mormons are Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Catholics are Christians.

Any statement of "what Christians believe" is inevitibly going to rule out some of them.