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.
No. What you actually do is look at things that we know about the universe - incorporate those things into your definition of god - then say that god must exist because its attributes match exactly the things you tailored the definition to fit.
As such - as I keep pointing out - all you are doing is recognizing we do not know why we are here - realising there must be a reason for it - and you are labeling that reason "god". As such you are adding nothing at all to the conversation. It is just a labeling exercise. And I do not care, because you can label it "Self Raising Flour" for all I care.
The problem however is having done that labeling you then try to append egregious nonsense to the label such as the universe itself is conscious and human subjectivity and consciousness survives death and lives on. Hoping all the while that people will accept your "god" labeling and their own associations with that word will lubricate the passage of the baseless declarations you are trying to ram in.
Remember the topic of this thread, and we have to stay on topic, is about defining god. I do not think that we can define it into existence though.
Goody. That is all I want. Pick one and explain it to us then rather than this campaign of avoiding doing so and blaming your not doing so on us.
No, no, no...you seem to just not "get it"...sooooooo, let me 'splain it to ya:
The way it works as respects how everybody (except, it seems, some on this board) assesses things---First you need a basic knowledge and understanding of the attributes/characteristics that define something and the typical name or "label" that is assigned to something that has those attributes/characteristics. Then, through observation or other evidence that leads you to a determination that there is something that identifies itself definitively as that which you know to be "labeled" by those attributes/characteristics...you can then determine/conclude that something that fits that "label" actually does exist.
I gave a base/minimal definition of what would constitute a God. No reasonable person would conclude the attributes/characteristics that I required within that definition are not sufficiently "strict & lofty" so as to dilute the definition to insignificance (like the know attributes/characteristics of "cake mix" would to qualify it as being God, within a reasonable definition of God). MOF, nothing else BUT God could fit the definition I put forth.
We KNOW there exists something that fits that "strict & lofty" definition...THUS, we can conclude that GOD EXISTS.
The way it works as respects how everybody assesses things---First you need a basic knowledge and understanding of the attributes/characteristics that define something and the typical name or "label" that is assigned to something that has those attributes/characteristics.
Then it is up to you to start by defining _exactly_ what you mean when you say "god" before you evidence that the thing you are defining actually exists. So by all means start as I am yet to see a coherent definition from you as to what you mean when you use the term "god".
What appears to be happening around here from users like yourself and our resident peddler of mysticism is to decide you want "god" to exist first.... then finding attributes of the universe and defining god in such a way as it has those attributes too. Then when getting such a definition of "god" that works in this way you simply add in other things you personally like.
So by all means break that cycle and define exactly what you think "god" is and then we can enter into a discussion on whether the thing you defined is evidenced or substantiated in any way at all.
No, no, no...you seem to just not "get it"...sooooooo, let me 'splain it to ya:
The way it works as respects how everybody (except, it seems, some on this board) assesses things---First you need a basic knowledge and understanding of the attributes/characteristics that define something and the typical name or "label" that is assigned to something that has those attributes/characteristics. Then, through observation or other evidence that leads you to a determination that there is something that identifies itself definitively as that which you know to be "labeled" by those attributes/characteristics...you can then determine/conclude that something that fits that "label" actually does exist.
I gave a base/minimal definition of what would constitute a God. No reasonable person would conclude the attributes/characteristics that I required within that definition are not sufficiently "strict & lofty" so as to dilute the definition to insignificance (like the know attributes/characteristics of "cake mix" would to qualify it as being God, within a reasonable definition of God). MOF, nothing else BUT God could fit the definition I put forth.
We KNOW there exists something that fits that "strict & lofty" definition...THUS, we can conclude that GOD EXISTS.
These are just the same empty non-definitions that mysticphd offers. You are - like him/her - just taking the universe and all our questions about it and calling that "god" essentially. As I keep pointing out I have no issue with that. You could call it all "Pea Soup" for all I care.
The issue I take with Mysticphd is that having done that labelling he/she then tries to sneak in other attributes and claims off the back of it - such as claiming that this "god" is sentient and conscious - or that the universe itself is conscious - or that human experience and consciousness survives death - or that this "god" judges us morally after death - and so forth.
Calling everything "god" is one thing and you can do it all you like for all I care - pointless as it is. Making those other claims with no evidence or back up whatsoever however is a different kettle entirely.
Then it is up to you to start by defining _exactly_ what you mean when you say "god" before you evidence that the thing you are defining actually exists. So by all means start as I am yet to see a coherent definition from you as to what you mean when you use the term "god".
What appears to be happening around here from users like yourself and our resident peddler of mysticism is to decide you want "god" to exist first.... then finding attributes of the universe and defining god in such a way as it has those attributes too. Then when getting such a definition of "god" that works in this way you simply add in other things you personally like.
So by all means break that cycle and define exactly what you think "god" is and then we can enter into a discussion on whether the thing you defined is evidenced or substantiated in any way at all.
Nozz...read my post #82 in this thread...where the first thing I do is give a clear, concise, and I submit "coherent" (to anyone that isn't trying be intentionally ignorant) definition of "God". Now read it again. Now read it a few more times.
If, after doing that, you STILL can't grasp what I mean when I use the term "God", and what I think "God" is...there is nothing more I can do for ya, and you can cease and desist asking me for a definition of "God", since that will determine that I will just have to chalk it up as we got here is "a failure to communicate" and that some men you just can't "reach"...and though I don't like it...that's the way you want it.
These are just the same empty non-definitions that mysticphd offers. You are - like him/her - just taking the universe and all our questions about it and calling that "god" essentially. As I keep pointing out I have no issue with that. You could call it all "Pea Soup" for all I care.
The issue I take with Mysticphd is that having done that labelling he/she then tries to sneak in other attributes and claims off the back of it - such as claiming that this "god" is sentient and conscious - or that the universe itself is conscious - or that human experience and consciousness survives death - or that this "god" judges us morally after death - and so forth.
Calling everything "god" is one thing and you can do it all you like for all I care - pointless as it is. Making those other claims with no evidence or back up whatsoever however is a different kettle entirely.
Nozz...read my post #82 in this thread...where the first thing I do is give a clear, concise, and I submit "coherent" (to anyone that isn't trying be intentionally ignorant) definition of "God". Now read it again. Now read it a few more times.
If, after doing that, you STILL can't grasp what I mean when I use the term "God", and what I think "God" is...there is nothing more I can do for ya, and you can cease and desist asking me for a definition of "God", since that will determine that I will just have to chalk it up as we got here is "a failure to communicate" and that some men you just can't "reach"...and though I don't like it...that's the way you want it.
These are just the same empty non-definitions that mysticphd offers. You are - like him/her - just taking the universe and all our questions about it and calling that "god" essentially. As I keep pointing out I have no issue with that. You could call it all "Pea Soup" for all I care.
We are not "calling" it anything . . . we are using its KNOWN attributes to define it. The attributes are what define it as God . . . not our "calling" it God. (FYI, I am a very male, male . . . eleven on a ten point scale of hetero.)
My definition of "God": Something that is able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
Annnnnnnd, I must add...since we know there DOES exist "something" that we see through direct observation that DOES create, that DOES establish the "laws" that control that which has been created, and DOES provide what is necessary to maintain and sustain that creation...and does that all completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...we then know that God exists.
Why?
Because that is the base & unadulterated definitive attributes of a God. No?
HOW it happened? Doesn't matter.
WHY it happened? Doesn't matter.
If it has ALWAYS happened, or started somehow at some point? Doesn't matter either.
The FACT that it HAS happened...and continues to happen...is demonstrative that there is "something" that is a God.
Because: God is as God does...and by any other name would still be GOD.
These are just the same empty non-definitions that mysticphd offers. You are - like him/her - just taking the universe and all our questions about it and calling that "god" essentially. As I keep pointing out I have no issue with that. You could call it all "Pea Soup" for all I care.
The issue I take with Mysticphd is that having done that labelling he/she then tries to sneak in other attributes and claims off the back of it - such as claiming that this "god" is sentient and conscious - or that the universe itself is conscious - or that human experience and consciousness survives death - or that this "god" judges us morally after death - and so forth.
Calling everything "god" is one thing and you can do it all you like for all I care - pointless as it is. Making those other claims with no evidence or back up whatsoever however is a different kettle entirely.
Right. You can attempt to define something, but you cannot merely define something into existence.
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.
