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.
From reading these post I'm very much confused about the definition of "GOD".
Is God separate from Gods creation? If so, then where is the evidence that shows this. A belief is not evidence, a belief is nothing more than a concept that the mind is attached to.
If your definition of God is that it is: The Universe, Nature and All Existence, then there is no separation between this God and it's creation, therefore rendering this God as a non being and therefore anything could be called a god. If "All Existence" is this God then there is no separate thing to call God. It can not be all things and be separate at the same time.
Of course NOT! It doesn't even provide the evidence necessary to question God's existence . . . since all of the evidence that does exist must be attributed to a surrogate "Non-God" called Nature or Universe or Multi-verse, etc. which has all the attributes of God relative to us puny creatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
But it does provide a procedure to question the existence of this god. The procedure is one where if there is no reason to think your hypothesis true then you ditch it.
There is nothing in science that even suggests there is a god. And everything in science works okey dokey without it - as Laplace was said to have pointed out.
This is patently false. The ineffable and largely inscrutable Source for all of existence is the single most ubiquitous and encompassing description of God. There is no more expansive concept possible. The angst and phobia attached to acknowledging this otherwise inescapable fact of reality as God is NOT rational nor is it remotely objective and scientific. The arguments against the myriad descriptions of and beliefs ABOUT the Source of this ineffable reality cannot be used to refute its existence. We are more than capable of being wrong . . . and what's even more true is that we may well be completely unable to know and or understand. You accept our ignorance about it . . . but pretend that its very ubiquity, scope, power and control over us and everything else is NOT sufficiently encompassing to earn the label God. The angst and repugnance toward the religious autocracy that persecuted our first efforts to understand it is powerful. That does NOT change the status of our reality one whit.
Quote:
Saying nature has the attributes of god is just a trick where you make up god and then define its attributes to be the same. We may be puny in relation to the vastness of reality but feeling relateively small is no justification for calling it all god.
Stop pretending it is some minor thing like being too small. This kind of Texas sidestep is appropriate for Texas politicians but not the supposed scientifically objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
But saying attributes are "god like" and then saying that the "source is god" are two massively different statements and jump from the first to the second as if you think it is a smooth transition.
All you are actually saying is the same thing we are saying - that right now we do not have a complete explanation of our existence here. That ignorance is human wide. What use is there in labeling that ignorance with the word "god" - given the vastly held opinions on the meaning of that word such as being an intelligent deity with an actual mind.This use of words which mean massively different things to the majority of people - to describe things we already have useful words for - serves to do nothing but confuse.
This is more of the attempt to use the myriad descriptions and beliefs ABOUT God to muddy the existence issue. NONE of our human beliefs ABOUT God have ANY bearing on the EXISTENCE issue whatsoever. IF every one of us is completely WRONG about God . . . God still EXISTS. It is an ineffable and largely inscrutable reality, period. You can believe what you wish ABOUT it . . . as can we all. It changes nothing about reality . . . which simply IS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
You guys are implying a definition of God, and asserting that Nature is it, but you have not clearly and rigorously specified the requirements for a "God". It is the vague and slippery nature of your definitions that I am questioning. You list some attributes, and then ask how is that not God. Well you have not first established that these things are necessary and sufficient for a thing to be a "god".
You guys are emotionally closed to any concept of God . . . if the Source of our entire reality does not qualify because you don't see what you demand be presented about it. You are no different than the fundies who demand all the Omni's and other attributes that MUST be present for God to qualify as God to them. You just have a different set of attributes that MUST be present. The simple truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what you or anyone else demands that God MUST be . . . the God that is responsible for everything EXISTS and whatever attributes we want to attribute or not attribute to God are irrelevant to that existence.
Quote:
As best I can tell the argument is that things we don't understand, things that are really big, or things that exist must be a god. The "Create/Control/Maintain & Sustain" bit only makes sense at all if the thing that does these bits is separate from reality itself, which doesn't seem to be what either of you are asserting. None of these things are directly stated, not is the issue of how big must a thing be before it is divine? How inscrutible? How pervasive? Is it of necessity a singular thing, or can there be multiple gods, or a whole society of them? You have to define first and then evaluate the evidence.
No we don't. Existence is existence . . . regardless how much we know or do not know about it or how we wish to define it. Your emotional reticence to acknowledge the undeniable status of what is because of the negative and otherwise unacceptable to you attributes or beliefs extant about it . . . is just that . . . emotional reticence and irrational bias.
Quote:
In short, what you need are necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be a "god" in the contextually appropriate sense of the word. Neither of you have laid this out clearly. Until you do so, your claim that it is evidentially supported cannot be evaluated.
-NoCapo
We have repeatedly detailed those necessary and sufficient conditions for you . . . but you keep harping on what we must be able to KNOW about God so you can hang on to our ignorance as some basis for NOT acknowledging God. You are free to question and dispute any and all claims about the ATTRIBUTES of God . . . but the EXISTENCE of God as the Source of our reality is simply too all-encompassing to be rationally denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
From reading these post I'm very much confused about the definition of "GOD".
Is God separate from Gods creation? If so, then where is the evidence that shows this. A belief is not evidence, a belief is nothing more than a concept that the mind is attached to.
If your definition of God is that it is: The Universe, Nature and All Existence, then there is no separation between this God and it's creation, therefore rendering this God as a non being and therefore anything could be called a god. If "All Existence" is this God then there is no separate thing to call God. It can not be all things and be separate at the same time.
There is no need for any separation . . . except for those who have a vested interest in specific beliefs ABOUT God. It is the EXISTENCE of God that accounts for our reality, period . . . not any specific set of beliefs about the ATTRIBUTES of God. There is absolutely no reason or rationale for imputing anything supernatural . . . just natural things that are not currently understood. All "natural" things are as much part of God as we are from an existential perspective.
10-23-2013, 03:06 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is no need for any separation . . . except for those who have a vested interest in specific beliefs ABOUT God. It is the EXISTENCE of God that accounts for our reality, period . . . not any specific set of beliefs about the ATTRIBUTES of God. There is absolutely no reason or rationale for imputing anything supernatural . . . just natural things that are not currently understood. All "natural" things are as much part of God as we are from an existential perspective.
Msytic, actually it is just EXISTENCE itself that accounts for reality/nature - there is no need for it to be called 'GOD' - whatever attributes may come of it.
Msytic, actually it is just EXISTENCE itself that accounts for reality/nature - there is no need for it to be called 'GOD' - whatever attributes may come of it.
That is simply an emotional aversion to the term God based on pre-existing biases and prejudice based on the myriad things people want to believe ABOUT God. The raw STATUS of the Source of our existence is by any sane and rational standard God to us . . . no matter what people want to believe about it.
10-23-2013, 03:17 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is simply an emotional aversion to the term God based on pre-existing biases and prejudice based on the myriad things people want to believe ABOUT God. The raw STATUS of the Source of our existence is by any sane and rational standard God to us . . .no matter what people want to believe about it.
No it's a reasonable aversion exactly because of that baggage. I did not say 'our' as in humans but 'our' as in nature itself - there is no need for a Source of nature's existence since it is itself eternal.
No it's a reasonable aversion exactly because of that baggage. I did not say 'our' as in humans but 'our' as in nature itself - there is no need for a Source of nature's existence since it is itself eternal.
It is NOT reasonable . . . it is an irrational emotional repugnance fostered by experiences with believers of various stripes who have irrational beliefs ABOUT God. Identify your enemies more accurately.
10-23-2013, 03:30 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is NOT reasonable . . . it is an irrational emotional repugnance fostered by experiences with believers of various stripes who have irrational beliefs ABOUT God. Identify your enemies more accurately.
Sorry, you are just begging the question. You are the one who adopted the term and are trying to redefine it to suite you own subjective emotional experiences - which you have clearly wrote about for all to see.
If I may... I just see two guys arguing over what to call a force that already exists regardless of humans in general... one wants to call it "nature" and the other "god".
Why don't we just settle the argument and call it "Nagodture" ?
Sorry, you are just begging the question. You are the one who adopted the term and are trying to redefine it to suite you own subjective emotional experiences - which you have clearly wrote about for all to see.
It is you who have misrepresented the provenance of the terms. God pre-existed your redefined term.
If I may... I just see two guys arguing over what to call a force that already exists regardless of humans in general... one wants to call it "nature" and the other "god".
Why don't we just settle the argument and call it "Nagodture" ?
I would prefer "God's Nature," Chango.
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.
