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.
That is what the thread is about. Seems an odd thing to do to go into a thread about X and say it is not about X.
This thread is EVERYTHING to do with god being real or not.
Your definition of god as being just all of everything is too dilute to be useful here. All you are saying is "Whatever exists I am going to call that god, therefore god exists". But this is meaningless. Why even use the word "god"? You could just as easily say "All that exists I am going to call splur-gy-worgy and since things exist so does splur-gy-worgy".
You are essentially typing a lot of words but saying nothing at all. Certainly nothing relevant to the topic of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by searchingwithin
Life is real "God" is all life when we limit this into condtiions we create the separtation of beleif and non belief.
Splurgywurgy is real as splurgywurgy is just all life.
See we can all redefine words, or even make up words, to say nothing at all.
Be able to be measured and quantified through the scientific method (i.e. be observable through some sort of reliable testable evidence). I deal in matters I that can be proven, not conjecture or what my grandparents told me to believe in (and bolstered by instilling that belief through fear).
Well, we call that 'Nature'. For us to correctly talk of 'God' we need some evidence of more than natural going on. Personal convictions or even mystical experiences are not good enough. picking on coincidental events as God's hand' is statistically invalid. I have had hundreds of such coincidences but I have never been a believer. It is just coincidence.
ID, archaeology and cosmology has failed to show any sound evidence of a god (apart from human belief) and unexplained questions are no more than that. The argument from Morality is dead in the water.
What apart from faith is the rationale for God -belief? And faith -as I have said - is not good enough, as a sound reason to believe.
I don't contest anyone's right to believe but I do stand on my right to contest its soundness, especially on a thread about reasons to believe.
I do agree with you on the ET thing, though.
The word God is not adequately defined in the Merriam Webster online dictionary. (Comments in blue)
Quote:
capitalized1: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. Sorry, that's the Christian God. bChristian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. That definition... is fallacious. If God is infinite, incorporeal, and divine, as said above, God does not need a body, does not run out (and therefore doesn't need things like food or water, or worship), and is divine (divine meaning "relating to gods/God" means that God is related to Himself/Herself, or simply is). Therefore this definition has a fallacy that God needs our worship. God doesn't "create" Nature, God doesn't "create" the Universe. God is.
3: a person or thing of supreme value This is an okay definition.
4: a powerful ruler Sorry, that's a "king."
As said before, God doesn't "create." God is.
אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה
That's it. Any thing you might create, has a creator. In this case it would be you, since you created it. Nothing arises from nothing though, it's a logical impossibility. Even if you had stuff spontaneously appearing, you'd still wonder where it came from. Even if there was nothing at all, the nothing that is you, would wonder where all that nothing came from.
Where did God come from? God is. That's the definition of what a God is. A being that exists by its own devices, not by being born through something else. Such a thing cannot be undone by others, because it owes nothing to others. You and I need food. But God doesn't care if atheists don't wanna believe, doesn't need sacrifices, doesn't need anything really. So, yes, this definition applies to Nature and the Universe. Everything that is, is a miracle of existence. You didn't need to exist (your parents didn't need to have massive kinky sex to create you, but it happened. And it was awesome), but you did. And it's a blessed miracle we get to talk to you. 'Cept when you're being a jerk.
Nothing arises from nothing though, it's a logical impossibility.
Seemingly not given particles in our universe are popping in and out of existence all the time. As recommended before you would do well to watch the talk "A universe from nothing" on You Tube or... if your attention span is up to it.... reading the book of the same name.
However it is worth pointing out that the "something from nothing" is a theist assumption. Not an atheist one. Who says, for example, that there has not "always" been a something? Why assume, except for reasons of defining your god into existence on no evidence, that "nothing" is the default and therefore the "something" requires explanation. Perhaps "something" being there has always been the default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Even if you had stuff spontaneously appearing, you'd still wonder where it came from.
And we do. It is an open question which our best minds are working on answering. There is no answer yet. However playing the "god of the gaps" and simply making things up to fill that void is not going to help us either. At this time it seems that we exist here and we do not yet know why. Period. There is certainly no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer... much less from you.... to suggest any kind of intentional intelligent agent.... such as envisioned by many theists.... exists or has anything to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Where did God come from? God is. That's the definition of what a God is.
And making up definitions is all you are doing. There is nothing on offer here to suggest what you are saying is true. You are just tailoring an "out of thin air" definition so as to best suit the agenda of absolving you of the requirement of any substantiation whatsoever. In essence you are simply defining yourself to be right by defining yourself to be right. That helps nothing at all in the discourse here.
Seemingly not given particles in our universe are popping in and out of existence all the time. As recommended before you would do well to watch the talk "A universe from nothing" on You Tube or... if your attention span is up to it.... reading the book of the same name.
However it is worth pointing out that the "something from nothing" is a theist assumption. Not an atheist one. Who says, for example, that there has not "always" been a something? Why assume, except for reasons of defining your god into existence on no evidence, that "nothing" is the default and therefore the "something" requires explanation. Perhaps "something" being there has always been the default.
You're correct, it is a theist assumption. Creation ex nihilo. Science on the other hand widely holds the Conservation of Matter.
Quote:
The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed.
In other words, if religion is reconcilable with science (which I believe it is, being a person of faith and reason), this means matter it one time was constructed of Divine Stuff. This changed through processes into what we know as matter.
And we do. It is an open question which our best minds are working on answering. There is no answer yet. However playing the "god of the gaps" and simply making things up to fill that void is not going to help us either. At this time it seems that we exist here and we do not yet know why. Period. There is certainly no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer... much less from you.... to suggest any kind of intentional intelligent agent.... such as envisioned by many theists.... exists or has anything to do with it.
Who says it needs to be intelligent? This is your words, not mine. At this point, I'd take Midichlorians as a reasonable cause for universe, not some wise old man.
Science already has the logical reasons to presuppose one way or another, based on the empirical findings, and the logical consequences of them. But science itself has become a faith of sort, denying anything even within its own findings that doesn't pan out. "We need more evidence" they say. But there is already evidence there, and no matter how you cut it, you have to either recant what you said, or face the logic of your own making.
And making up definitions is all you are doing. There is nothing on offer here to suggest what you are saying is true. You are just tailoring an "out of thin air" definition so as to best suit the agenda of absolving you of the requirement of any substantiation whatsoever. In essence you are simply defining yourself to be right by defining yourself to be right. That helps nothing at all in the discourse here.
How do dictionary definitions arise? The writers came up with them, using common usage of the area around them. The same reason somehow relying on the idea that a dictionary definition of marriage has any validity (it doesn't, because people can define marriage in other ways). I created a definition. The same way, whatever we wanna call whatever changed/created/whatever and had the Universe take place, created the Universe. And humans created myths about the universe. The act of Creation is what causes things to be, and it can be done with anything with opposable thumbs. But somehow I'm not able to question the definition that another person gave of a word? Especially since the very words they said made no sense in relation to each other?
True enough. Where do the compilers of dictionaries get their definitions? From everywhere. They get accurate definitions validates by science, vague definitions applied to concepts by woolly thinkers and wrong usages by the general pop. Everything goes in there to give as full a collection of words as possible.
Dictionaries are invaluable for showing what words are used to denote. They do not provide unquestioned authority for a definition. Let alone one cherry -picked definition misused to support a misrepresentation (e.g 'belief= faith' and 'Theory = hypothesis').
How, then, do we arrive at a correct meaning for a term?
Of course we have to look to the validation (if any) where there is dispute about the accuracy or relevance of a dictionary term. It is the methods of science and the the mental tools of logic that provide the reliable answers. The other methods do not have a track record of delivering anything but confusion and error.
People use 'God' in a lot of ways. Rather annoyingly some scientists use the term to refer to the workings of nature. However, you can use words any way you wish. You can Use 'Titanic' to refer to the expanding universe or ''apple -core' to refer to the Higgs -boson. So long as you explain what you are talking about, there is no harm done, other than to your semantic lexicon. So long as one doesn't assign a doubtfully related terms to a concept and then argue that the concept must be revised to fit the actual meaning of the term, they are not doing anything intellectually dishonest. Just a bit confusing.
It would be helpful if you would learn to use the quote function correctly. This makes it easier to reply to you for one. It also stops it looking like I said things I did not for another. By putting your words in my quote you are essentially putting your words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Science on the other hand widely holds the Conservation of Matter.
To a point. But not entirely. The "Big Bang" point for example is one where the laws all break down and we do not hold to conservation of matter at that point. Further as I said we have particles pop in and our of existence all the time.
Suffice to say however the assumption which you correctly agreed with me is a theist one is not one I share. The possibilities are open for me. Having to make that assumption and stick to it _should_ really be an alarm bell for theists that their faith is misplaced however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
matter it one time was constructed of Divine Stuff.
That seems to be one of those nonsensical play with words. You just define whatever it was as "Divine Stuff" and now you can linguistically sneak in god. No thanks. We simply have no idea what form our universe took "before" the current one and postulating gods and divinty based on nothing at all does not help us here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Who says it needs to be intelligent? This is your words, not mine.
What did you just do? Read the words you replied to and stop without reading further just so you could post some righteous indignation or something? The very next words in the sentence were "such as envisioned by many theists". So no it is not your words OR mine. I was referring to populist belief here.
Next time try replying to everything I said, rather than a cherry picked snippet of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
But there is already evidence
For what? God? Certainly none I have ever been shown. If you are aware of any then by all means be the first to show me. Alas I have long lost count of the number of users who have joined this forum... assured me there is evidence... then proceeded to not give me a single shred of it. Ever. So you will forgive my weary tone resulting from hearing your empty rhetoric innumerable times before if you please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
How do dictionary definitions arise?
If this was a thread about linguistics and etymology I would happily tell you. It is not however. It is a thread about god and how it could make people like me believe it to exist.
The point is, so long as you are not in denial of some glaring flaw of logical reasoning, I have no great need to sell you on my theories. I am not here to win souls or any such crap. My stance is that any God if there's one out there would likely just go create stuff, and then mind Her own business.
What proof do I have that God isn't out there judging people left and right? Someone dies. You're mourning. Is there some sort of break in the scheme of things, that dictates that day must be downcast? No, if the day needs rain (drought for instance) it'll probably get it. Otherwise, you may have a perfectly sunny beautiful day in light of the fact you'll have to mortgage to pay for the funeral. We know that much, at least.
The word God is not adequately defined in the Merriam Webster online dictionary. (Comments in blue)
As said before, God doesn't "create." God is.
אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה
That's it. Any thing you might create, has a creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing-rflmn
Wrong on it's face, as duly noted many times here. You are simply applying your own imaginary standards to things for which there are, in fact, none. You fail to accept that we (meaning us modern humans) may have not yet achieved the necessary (and Evolved, btw..) intelligence (as in: neuronal connections) to "suss" all this out.
You therefore arrogantly assume we're at some intellectual nexus, and will not advance any further intellectually than we're at today, even though we have ample proof that we certainly have. The Neanderthals or CroMagnons, sorry to say, did not have average measurable IQs anywhere near our modern levels, (even if we could measure them) that surpasses ours, and they obviously had difficulty with many of the concepts that any school kid can now easily handle. Those same kids also benefit from relatively advanced educations that bypass those simple religious mythologies as The Answer.
Religion as The Set of Correct Answers has obviously been long bypassed, except by those who need it's calming anti-death pro-Salvation option. Since death obviously scares the living daylights out of any and all devout Christians, I can indeed understand why they DO NOT WANT to EVER discuss or challenge it. You certainly don't.
In this case it would be you, since you created it. Nothing arises from nothing though, it's a logical impossibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing-harder-rflmn™
Well then, why is it you won't discuss how your God created all of what you claim He did out of [wayyttt fur it!...] NOTHING? That is exactly what you are claiming! Out of the void, when He wanted light, He made light. then planets. Then man and woman, always out of nothing. And so on. All just as inconceivable as our supposedly nonsensical ideas, except we're willing to examine and investigate these ideas, well beyond simple blind-faith rote-chanted but unsupportable mythical beliefs. You know, the ones which you wholeheartedly embrace without any rational challenges. How so pray tell?
You call this intelligent and thoughtful? Hardly. It's simply the mind-set of the truly scientifically and logically illiterate. And this you are proud of? My god man..
Even if you had stuff spontaneously appearing, you'd still wonder where it came from. Even if there was nothing at all, the nothing that is you, would wonder where all that nothing came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by please-stop-it! rflmn™
Obviously we do wonder where it came from, but we also don't just attribute it to Godly magic and then walk away with a smug smirk on our faces!
We of a scientific and logical demeanor don't then happily land on The Divine Creator concept, since on even the most simple evaluations, that one completely disintegrates. A completed universe in what? 6 days? A global fludd with only two of each animal (3000 species of dinosaurs alone, in reproduceably necessary numbers of each [which is about minimum of several hundred of each species, not just TWO??]
Or as the Genesis of what we now count as well over 3 million species living on the planet right now? With at last another 50 million having already gone extinct? How DO you explain that one in conjunction with your 300 cubit-long windowless Ark with no fresh water, no food, no light and no sanitation? "Nonsense" is what we call that one, but no, not you! You actually believe it, without any questions AT ALL!
Amazing! But also, well, logically inept and "stupitt"!!
(So then... riiiiggghhhttt.... Where's your logic, man? Did you leave it outside on the doorstep?). Or all the geological column's visibly obvious facts and counts (one layer, two layers, three layers,... five million layers... and so on...), all made by God to do what again? Test our faith? Or did He create all those chronologically-ordered fossils and geo-layers to fool us? Hmmm... He's obviously possessing of quite the ultimate moral standards...
Face it: your version is impossible and also nonsensical. But you certainly can't face that, now can you?)
Where did God come from? God is. That's the definition of what a God is. A being that exists by its own devices, not by being born through something else. Such a thing cannot be undone by others, because it owes nothing to others.
You and I need food. But God doesn't care if atheists don't wanna believe, doesn't need sacrifices, doesn't need anything really. So, yes, this definition applies to Nature and the Universe. Everything that is, is a miracle of existence. You didn't need to exist (your parents didn't need to have massive kinky sex to create you, but it happened. And it was awesome), but you did. And it's a blessed miracle we get to talk to you. 'Cept when you're being a jerk.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. (So somewhere in my youth and childhood...)
You obviously cannot comprehend simple Evolution in terns of accumulated chance mutations of DNA. You probably don't believe in such a concept, now do you? Only that DNA exists without any possible changes, right? (It's OK: I no longer expect any answers from the likes of you, since you know that to discuss these topics with a knowledgeable and scientifically educated person is to lose...)
Well... blah blah blah! Back at'cha! From the nonsensical mind cometh nonsense! Predictably. Devout Christians always default to nonsense, and then refuse to discuss even the simplest of questions, or answer the simplest of Yes/No challenges. I wonder why () [Talk about self-denial and obfuscation!]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Seemingly not, given [that] particles in our universe are popping in and out of existence all the time. As recommended before, you would do well to watch the talk "A universe from nothing" on YouTube or... if your attention span is up to it.... reading the book of the same name.
However it is worth pointing out that the "something from nothing" is a theist assumption. Not an atheist one. Who says, for example, that there has not "always" been a something? Why assume, except for reasons of defining your god into existence on no evidence, that "nothing" is the default and therefore the "something" requires explanation. Perhaps "something" being there has always been the default.
(edited for brevity & clarity]
There is no answer yet. However playing the "god of the gaps" and simply making things up to fill that void is not going to help us either. At this time it seems that we exist here and we do not yet know why. Period. There is certainly no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer... much less from you.... to suggest any kind of intentional intelligent agent.... such as envisioned by many theists.... exists or has anything to do with it.
And making up definitions is all you are doing. There is nothing on offer here to suggest what you are saying is true. You are just tailoring an "out of thin air" definition so as to best suit the agenda of absolving you of the requirement of any substantiation whatsoever.
In essence you are simply defining yourself to be right by defining yourself to be right. That helps nothing at all in the discourse here.
Agreed: the ultimate in self-delusion and obfuscation, carried to absurd heights and imaginary ideas.
And, our Christian "debaters" (hah! ) here are terminally unable to defend those ideas since, well, there are no effective defenses. It simply dissolves into rote pagan chants and Latin blatherings. Good thing they have stopped the ritualistic sacrificial offerings, huh? You know: lest your children become at risk!
Therefore let's just duly note that to disallow such thoughts from entering the fray, fundamentalist Christians are also clearly defining their own extreme weaknesses, prejudices and non-intellectual scientifically illiterate biases.
Why should the question presume that "God" is a HE or that there is only one?
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.
More creatively imaginary nonsense, as usual.
) [Talk about self-denial and obfuscation!]
) here are terminally unable to defend those ideas since, well, there are no effective defenses. It simply dissolves into rote pagan chants and Latin blatherings. Good thing they have stopped the ritualistic sacrificial offerings, huh? You know: lest your children become at risk!
