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.
I understand the repartee and zingers between you and Gldn. He relishes that kind of discussion. But you seem to be particularly obtuse about this issue which suggests a deeply knee-jerk resistance to the God concept itself . . . not logic or reason or rationality. If you need a more concrete conceptual framework to glimpse this concept of God . . . consider "everything that exists" to be a single BEING that is constantly becoming (living). That should derail your desired sidetracks into infinite regresses, Sun Gods or any other subparts. Now . . . it is NOT necessary for the overall BEING to be anything other than what it IS (including everything) to be God to any and all its subparts. Analogously . . . if our individual cells were sentient and contemplating their fleeting cellular existences . . . we would be God to them. What about this conceptual framework do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
I totally understand your concept. Now, examine our observable reality. What we see is at best reality being the set of all that exists. We have no evidence that points to reality as an eternal entity, a being in its own right.
You do not think that "growing" (accelerated expansion) is not a sign of a living entity?
Quote:
So the existence of reality as the set, the collection of everything that exists is evidence of "Nature". That absolutely does not lend any credibility to the assertion that this set, this conglomeration of everything is a being or personal entity in its own right. That is why the fact of existence is not proof of God. This is why "Nature" != God, it is a subset of what you are calling God. The part that distinguishes the two is what we have no evidence for. Incidently, this is precisely what panentheism states, which is why I keep being so confused when you claim to be a panentheist and then claim that the existence of observable reality proves the existence of God. These two positions are not compatible, as panentheism defines god as nature plus something else. It is this something else that causes the confusion.
Again, I understand your concept, but the problem I have is you assert that the existence of god is proven because God = observable reality, and then state that God = observable reality plus some other stuff. This is the logical mismatch, and I can't tell if you can't see it, or if you are just hoping no one else will...
Ah . . . well the "something else" is consciousness . . . (the observing and understanding OF reality). Again analogously, our entire body and brain composite would be God to the individual sentient cellular lives and our consciousness would constitute the "something else" that could respond to the pain signals, etc. they produced to correct problems.
My panentheism works because of the phenomenon of consciousness as both the field within which our entire reality exists and the locus of our own individual consciousness.
Quote:
I do have a resistance to the God label, but that is really because I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that an essential aspect of divinity is being transcendent, which is really nice way of saying not real... If the universe were simply an organism, of which we were a part, it places no moral obligation, no judgement and no purpose on me. It doesn't have to be anything more than an animal or maybe even a plantlike being, of which I am a part. I am not really sure whether I could consider such a thing a deity after all. I have not come to a conclusion on this yet, but it certainly doesn't seem cut and dried to me...
-NoCapo
That is why the role and import of consciousness (and specifically the character of it) becomes central to God. The agape love of ALL life begins to resonate in that context.
NAH...you just wish I was "ignorant"...because that is your only hope to get over. Sorry...no dice.
I can fully understand the Atheist need to have "G-O-D" be limited to defining religious Deities or being a metaphor for a religious Deity. If it isn't...you're sunk.
I don't "ignore" that "G-O-D" can define a balcony...matter of fact, that should serve as proof to you that "G-O-D" is not necessarily a metaphor for religious Deities. But, again...you can't acknowledge that.
I have tried to explain this to you and others many times before, using analogy.
For example...if someone perceives another to be a "hero"..."hero's" then exist. It doesn't matter if someone else doesn't consider that same person a hero....or that if no one else even perceive hero's to exist at all. As long as anyone, anywhere, at any time, perceives another to be a "hero"...thus "HERO'S!
Same with the perception of someone or something as "GOD". It doesn't matter that you, et al, don't perceive "GOD", or even perceive "GOD'S" to exist at all. Someone does...so it is a "done deal" as respects the existence of "GOD".
There is a difference between Pantheist and Panentheist concepts. Check it out.
"EVERYTHING" (The Universe, All that Exists, etc), creates, controls, and maintain/sustains...and that is enough for me, in my perception, to assign the title "GOD" to it. I doubt you dispute EVERYTHING does, in fact, exist. Thus, "GOD".
That YOU don't consider EVERYTHING "God" is inconsequential...I do...and that is all that is needed to verify the existence of GOD.
Then of course there is "god". I don't consider the word itself bad or evil. Just broaden the definition enough, and we have "god". It's a humongous cloud. I'm fine with that.
I understand the repartee and zingers between you and Gldn. He relishes that kind of discussion.
I LOVE NoCapo...one of my favorite foils on this board! Very cool, very sharp...and has a wonderful brand of witty snark. NoCapo has been totally reliable for years now...we've gone back and forth dozens of times. I have great appreciation for that.
You do not think that "growing" (accelerated expansion) is not a sign of a living entity?
Of course not. When a mountain grows (increases in size, expansion) that doesn't make it alive. Biological growth, the only sort of life we have any real idea about (there could be others, we just have not seen it) is much different than expansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Ah . . . well the "something else" is consciousness . . . (the observing and understanding OF reality). Again analogously, our entire body and brain composite would be God to the individual sentient cellular lives and our consciousness would constitute the "something else" that could respond to the pain signals, etc. they produced to correct problems.
My panentheism works because of the phenomenon of consciousness as both the field within which our entire reality exists and the locus of our own individual consciousness.That is why the role and import of consciousness (and specifically the character of it) becomes central to God. The agape love of ALL life begins to resonate in that context.
And this is why I resist the characterization of "nature" as "god". If consciousness is not a field, if reality itself is not a conscious being, then all the god-ness is taken away. And this added god-ness is purely speculative. I can buy the claim that observable reality plus some transcendent factor might add up to a god, but without the "magic" part, what we have is the reality we live in, that we can observe, that we model and approximate. This is what makes the difference between "Nature" and "God"
I think I might call it quits for the spirituality discussions because there is a big disconnect between those who wish for "god" to be true and those who don't have that wish and in my opinion want to see things for what they are. We try to bridge the gap with words, and words don't cut it. We are left with an argument that has no basis for even talking about, when we can't even agree on what the words mean. I'm not blaming one party or another, just making an observation. There are fundamental differences in ways of thinking, which, even if we had all the words we wanted, couldn't be bridged.
These debates are fun at best, vicious at worst, and will rarely lead to a better understanding of each other.
There is nothing logically fallacious about pointing out you make assertions and then do not back them up. There is nothing logically fallacious about pointing out that you use the argument ad populum fallacy to back up your otherwise unsubstantiated assertions.
The only one engaged in fallacy here is you.
The only way to "vanquish" my pointing out your unsubstantiated assertions would be.... wait for it.... to substantiate them.
Cant do it can you? You never could and never have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
"GOD" is a TITLE, that can be assigned to whatever one considers such.
So is "spoon" then. If we are going to go around simply changing language to suit ourselves then we can call anything anything. It does not mean a god exists. If you want to call your pet dog "god" then this does not mean "god" exists. It just means you can not speak english.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Everything. All new things, people, creatures, etc. You didn't know "creation" is ongoing and constantly occurs?
This is not "creation". It is merely the realignment of matter and energy. Nothing is being "created" here. If I get a pile of wood and arrange it to form a table I have just reorganised matter.
I have not really "created" anything except in the sense of the arbitrary linguistic definitions of English in that the wood now conforms to our definition of "table". We might linguistically say "I created a table" but the fact is we did no such thing.
But energy and matter are not "creating" anything. They are just reassembling and realinging. The "creation" is just your subjective misunderstanding of the actual processes around you. Get educated on the reality and you will stop making such glaring and blatant errors.
So you have shot yourself in the foot entirely. Your ENTIRE definition of god is based on the ability to "create". And you have asserted matter and energy create things. They do not. At all. They merely align and realign, assemble and reassemble, in different configurations over time.
So you have entirely failed to define your own god into existence. Quite the opposite. you have proved your own specific assertion of god does NOT exist by declaring what attribute it must have.... when in fact the things you are calling "god" do not have it.
Bully for you kid. Better luck with your next attempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Your determination/conclusion "not to subscribe" to a claim based upon a premise of "unsubstantiated" (no evidence) is NOT logical.
Except it is. If there is no reason to believe a claims, I do not believe the claim. Simples. If you want to believe them anyway then we have a word for that: Fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
What part of that don't you understand?
Not agreeing with your nonsense is not the same as not understanding your nonsense. I understand the things you are saying perfectly. I just find them to be unsubstantiated nonsense tosh. And I have explained at length why.
If you want to PRETEND (more fantasy) that my failure to agree with your tosh is a failure to understand that tosh, then have at it. But you are only convincing yourself as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Raises both hands...looks up to the sky in victory...as typical of the Undefeated Champion THEEEEEEEISM.
And more hot air empty posturing to make yourself feel good about yourself in a failed attempt to troll a reaction. Alas throwing your arms around and declaring yourself the "victor" in a competition you are only having with yourself appears to be all you have to offer the thread.
There is nothing logically fallacious about pointing out you make assertions and then do not back them up. There is nothing logically fallacious about pointing out that you use the argument ad populum fallacy to back up your otherwise unsubstantiated assertions.
The only one engaged in fallacy here is you.
The only way to "vanquish" my pointing out your unsubstantiated assertions would be.... wait for it.... to substantiate them.
Cant do it can you? You never could and never have.
The ENTIRE Atheist platform rests on the Logical Fallacies Argument from Ignorance (how appropriate!!) and Argument from Silence.
Yet you complain others employ Logical Fallacy to back their concepts! I love it!!
You STILL don't have anything to contest the full expert definition of "G-O-D" I have presented over, and over, and over, again...that substantiates "GOD" as something other than a religious Deity? Didn't think so.
Quote:
So is "spoon" then. If we are going to go around simply changing language to suit ourselves then we can call anything anything. It does not mean a god exists. If you want to call your pet dog "god" then this does not mean "god" exists. It just means you can not speak english.
From a strictly "Real World" standpoint...all that one has to do is give their definition of "God", and that covers it.
MOF...If one were to say, "To ME, God is the big rock outcropping on my property"...and that rock outcropping does, in fact, exist...God then exists--as that person defines God.
Another can't then turn around and say, "That rock outcropping may exist...but it isn't God...show me evidence that it's God".
That's not how "God" works...God doesn't have to be some thing, or person, or action--it can be, but it doesn't have to be...God doesn't have to be something tangible, or even in any way discernible beyond a conceptualization..."God" is whatever anyone might define/perceive "God" to be...NOT what someone might think God MUST be, to be God.
Since "God" need be nothing more than the perception by someone that something or someone is "God" to them...the evidence of the perception of God, IS the evidence for God.
So...if ANYONE says they have a perception of God (and 98% of all the people that have lived DO)...and they actually DO have that perception, thus their perception exists...then God exists.
Even if God is just the concept of God in the conscious thought of the masses...if that conscious thought of God does, in fact, exist...then God does, in fact, exist.
Prove that anyone, anytime, EVER considered something/anything or someone to be "God"...and THAT is all the "hard evidence" that would be needed to prove the existence of God.
As respects, "The Way It Works In The Real World"..."God" is a conceptualization, a perception...like labeling someone a "king" or a "champion", for whatever reason you care to perceive them as that.
"God" is a TITLE...regardless of what some DEMAND a "God" be to be "God". That title can be assigned to anyone or anything one cares to define/perceive as such.
Thus...all that has to be "proved" is that the perception/conceptualization of "God" has occurred in anyone at any time, to "prove" that "God" exists.
Like something/someone you "know" to be "Your Love", or "Your Hero"...you can assign someone/something as "Your God".
Of course...some will not accept this...because then "God" most certainly exists...and their "Godophobia" affliction compels them to reject that concept at all costs.
Quote:
This is not "creation". It is merely the realignment of matter and energy. Nothing is being "created" here. If I get a pile of wood and arrange it to form a table I have just reorganised matter.
I have not really "created" anything except in the sense of the arbitrary linguistic definitions of English in that the wood now conforms to our definition of "table". We might linguistically say "I created a table" but the fact is we did no such thing.
But energy and matter are not "creating" anything. They are just reassembling and realinging. The "creation" is just your subjective misunderstanding of the actual processes around you. Get educated on the reality and you will stop making such glaring and blatant errors.
So you have shot yourself in the foot entirely. Your ENTIRE definition of god is based on the ability to "create". And you have asserted matter and energy create things. They do not. At all. They merely align and realign, assemble and reassemble, in different configurations over time.
So you have entirely failed to define your own god into existence. Quite the opposite. you have proved your own specific assertion of god does NOT exist by declaring what attribute it must have.... when in fact the things you are calling "god" do not have it.
Bully for you kid. Better luck with your next attempt.
Strange that EVERY scientific writing I have ever read on it states that "the Big Bang CREATED the Universe", "life, in all its different forms was CREATED by evolutionary processes", etc, etc, etc ,etc...and countless similar use of that term.
If it doesn't suit you...take it up with the scientists that constantly and consistently use that term.
I must say...If you have determined for yourself that all those scientists are wrong...and you deny that everything that exists was/is created...we are at an impasse.
You better let all those scientists know that "nothing is being created"...it appears none of them got the memo.
Quote:
Except it is. If there is no reason to believe a claims, I do not believe the claim. Simples. If you want to believe them anyway then we have a word for that: Fantasy.
You have "no evidence on offer" (to YOU) to support a claim...so you draw the illogical conclusion/determination that you should not believe it based upon the invalid premise of "no evidence on offer".
If you want to follow that flawed argument anyway then we have a word for that: Fallacy.
Which is the essence of the Atheist Concept...so keep with it...it's all you've got to work with.
Quote:
Not agreeing with your nonsense is not the same as not understanding your nonsense. I understand the things you are saying perfectly. I just find them to be unsubstantiated nonsense tosh. And I have explained at length why.
If you want to PRETEND (more fantasy) that my failure to agree with your tosh is a failure to understand that tosh, then have at it. But you are only convincing yourself as usual.
And more hot air empty posturing to make yourself feel good about yourself in a failed attempt to troll a reaction. Alas throwing your arms around and declaring yourself the "victor" in a competition you are only having with yourself appears to be all you have to offer the thread.
Look Nozz...if you have anything to contest the full expert definition of "G-O-D" that PROVES it defines entities other than religious Deities...then please put it up.
You don't have to agree with it...but calling it "unsubstantiated nonsense tosh" is not a valid argument against it. You have to PROVE it to be the "nonsense" you claim it is. I have explained at length why.
I Submit: If you don't have PROOF that conclusively refutes it...it stands as valid and accurate. And PROVES you to be wrong.
Excuse the expression, but OMG!
If I were Mystic, I think I would ask Gldn to disassociate himself with me.
Maybe he is filled with so much 'agape' love that it doesn't embarrass him.
NAH...you just wish I was "ignorant"...because that is your only hope to get over. Sorry...no dice.
It isn't about getting over, it is about trying to educate. Your beliefs don't bother me at all, but your abuse of logic, language, and reasoning are frightening. Its like there should be a Geneva convention to protect thinking from this kind of abuse. Come on, think of what you are doing to these poor words, mangling and twisting them like that! Have a heart!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I can fully understand the Atheist need to have "G-O-D" be limited to defining religious Deities or being a metaphor for a religious Deity. If it isn't...you're sunk.
I don't "ignore" that "G-O-D" can define a balcony...matter of fact, that should serve as proof to you that "G-O-D" is not necessarily a metaphor for religious Deities. But, again...you can't acknowledge that.
I acknowledge that god can be literal, metaphoric, or even refer to balconies. But from context, if we are discussing god as metaphor or god as a balcony, this should be on a philosophy, or a linguistics board, or even an architecture board. It is not, it is on a "religion and spirituality" board, which indicates that the discussion is about a literal supreme being or some collection of divinities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I have tried to explain this to you and others many times before, using analogy.
For example...if someone perceives another to be a "hero"..."hero's" then exist. It doesn't matter if someone else doesn't consider that same person a hero....or that if no one else even perceive hero's to exist at all. As long as anyone, anywhere, at any time, perceives another to be a "hero"...thus "HERO'S!
Same with the perception of someone or something as "GOD". It doesn't matter that you, et al, don't perceive "GOD", or even perceive "GOD'S" to exist at all. Someone does...so it is a "done deal" as respects the existence of "GOD".
This assumes that there is no such thing as an objective god. If you are willing to concede that god is simply a label applied to empirical phenomena and/or unsubstantiated belief, then my work here is done. Generally, though, theists are asserting that there is an objective God and it he/she/it has some very specific attributes, goals and desires. This is what I believe is unevidence, and thus should not be assumed to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
There is a difference between Pantheist and Panentheist concepts. Check it out.
I am well aware of the difference, but I wonder if you are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
"EVERYTHING" (The Universe, All that Exists, etc), creates, controls, and maintain/sustains...and that is enough for me, in my perception, to assign the title "GOD" to it. I doubt you dispute EVERYTHING does, in fact, exist. Thus, "GOD".
That YOU don't consider EVERYTHING "God" is inconsequential...I do...and that is all that is needed to verify the existence of GOD.
The argument that God = everything is a Pantheist concept, but the definition of God as being over everything, and creating, controlling and sustaining everything is clearly a Panentheist position. Which one is it that you are trying to support, because right now you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth...
-NoCapo
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.
