Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would these remaining attributesbe.. and can we falsify them?
The only thing that might remotely mitigate this unrelenting obtuseness is if English is a second language for you. I suspect it might be . . . because you are far too obtuse and oblivious to the clearest presentations. What the hell do you think we have been discussing for the past 100 or so posts on multiple threads?
I find it very limited and a feature of those who do not wish to search that they fall to given categories by which to define their position. Do I have to find someone wrong to make me right? It seems to me these linguistic categories are insufficient to get at what we supppose to be talking about. Nature or God or atheist or religionist or deist -- what are these but categories by which to identify myself. they say nothing of Reality or God or nature !!!???? none of it really addresses the issues it is supposed to be addressing. Is there anyone who desires to Try to get at something meaningful??
Um, there can only be one definition of "God" among every person in the world?
Fine. For the sake of argument, we'll say your definition here. For this post, "God" means "the known universe".
Quote:
all else is BELIEFS about.Your points are quite transparent, Half-Logic . . . and they are STILL mired in the BELIEFS ABOUT issue . . . not the validity, rationality or plausibility of EXISTENCE! Consciousness is an attribute in dispute . . . but it does NOT impact the EXISTENCE issue . . . the remaining attributes are sufficient for that.
Oh My God.
AGAIN this is why semantics is VERY IMPORTANT. Read very carefully.
"Existence", you say. "Existence" of what? By your definition, (minus the "beliefs about", as you insist) you mean 'existence of the known universe'. Well, NO ONE DISPUTES THAT!
So, WHY are you talking about the "validity, rationality or plausibility of the existence of the known universe"?
The only thing that might remotely mitigate this unrelenting obtuseness is if English is a second language for you. I suspect it might be . . . because you are far too obtuse and oblivious to the clearest presentations. What the hell do you think we have been discussing for the past 100 or so posts on multiple threads?
What's that, not 1 single point... Wow I guess I must have to accept your claims now
What are you trying to accomplish with this anyways, Mystic?
Eliminate the asinine default position of atheists who demand proof of God and claim there is none.
Quote:
Atheists are such because they do not worship. ANYTHING.
Worship never entered this discussion because it is not about BELIEFS . . . it is about the scientific evidence for the EXISTENCE of God . . . whatever is believed about it.
Quote:
Don't you know how utterly rediculous this argument is?
Why don't you explain it to me.
Quote:
Show me an Atheist who worships nature or anything else and I'll show you that you don't know what the word Atheist means.
Geez!
This has Zip, Nada to do with worship or BELIEFS. I could give a rats what or who worships what or who. I am quite conversant with what atheist means.
Um, there can only be one definition of "God" among every person in the world?
Fine. For the sake of argument, we'll say your definition here. For this post, "God" means "the known universe".
Known schmown, unknown schmunown . . . Thick as lead. God is ALL that there is . . . there is nothing that is NOT part of God. You have such difficulty with these things, Half.
Quote:
Oh My God.
NOT YOUR God or MY God or anyone else's God. Those would require unverified or unverifiable BELIEFS ABOUT!!!!!
Quote:
AGAIN this is why semantics is VERY IMPORTANT. Read very carefully.
"Existence", you say. "Existence" of what? By your definition, (minus the "beliefs about", as you insist) you mean 'existence of the known universe'.
Stuff your DEFINITIONS (which contain BELIEFS) where the sun don't shine, Half . . . and all your other BELIEFS as well. We are not talking about MY God or YOUR God . . . but GENERIC God. Thick,thick, thick. I'm not the one with the need to read more carefully.
Quote:
So, WHY are you talking about the "validity, rationality or plausibility of the existence of the known universe"?
I'm NOT!!! . . . the ONLY issue is the set of attributes in our scientific understanding of our realityand whether or not they are sufficiently Godly to qualify as EVIDENCE that God EXISTS . . . NOT MY God nor YOUR God or anyone else's (based on our individual BELIEFS) . . . but A God. There can be no real question that the attributes are more than sufficient.
Known schmown, unknown schmunown . . . Thick as lead. God is ALL that there is . . . there is nothing that is NOT part of God. You have such difficulty with these things, Half. NOT YOUR God or MY God or anyone else's God. Those would require unverified or unverifiable BELIEFS ABOUT!!!!! Stuff your DEFINITIONS (which contain BELIEFS) where the sun don't shine, Half . . . and all your other BELIEFS as well. We are not talking about MY God or YOUR God . . . but GENERIC God. Thick,thick, thick. I'm not the one with the need to read more carefully. I'm NOT!!! . . . the ONLY issue is the set of attributes in our scientific understanding of our realityand whether or not they are sufficiently Godly to qualify as EVIDENCE that God EXISTS . . . NOT MY God nor YOUR God or anyone else's (based on our individual BELIEFS) . . . but A God. There can be no real question that the attributes are more than sufficient.
Hummmmmm, perspective is all important. I, for example, can not see any reason for the myth of this god thing to exist. I think the world works quite well , without any need for the supernatural.
Hummmmmm, perspective is all important. I, for example, can not see any reason for the myth of this god thing to exist. I think the world works quite well , without any need for the supernatural.
. . . And the circus act continues with the next clown running in from off-stage focusing on definitions and non-existent phenomena. There is no such thing as supernatural . . . and myths play no role in this scientific discussion using the undeniable attributes of our reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God/not God/theist/ atheist/ nature
. . .
