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.
This position completely ignores the ATTRIBUTES of this nature "We do not know." It is the attributes that AT A MINIMUM qualify it as a God. You apply additional attributes that we have not discovered and may never discover to reject it as God, but that is IMO a symptom of God-o-phobia. You would sanctify your preference as more reasonable and honest without the slightest reason to do so. THAT, my friend, is real obtuseness. Just objectively consider the EXISTING attributes and forget your additional ones that may or may not exist. If they do not qualify as God you have serious God-o-phobia issues.
The problem does lay in the Godophobia diagnosis...not only is it accurate...it is chronic and epidemic among the "New Atheists".
They would rather display ignorance, illogic, lack of reason, and ultra close-minded fundamentalism than admit God is not limited to just nonexistent Religious Deities and similar nonexistent entities...and even when considering something they are actually part of (ALL/EVERYTHING) that reasonably meets the known definitive standards to be titled "GOD", they still feel compelled (due to their affliction) to insist the facts and evidence are not what they are, and remain in full denial.
They have truly become what they rail against.
This position completely ignores the ATTRIBUTES of this nature "We do not know." It is the attributes that AT A MINIMUM qualify it as a God. You apply additional attributes that we have not discovered and may never discover to reject it as God, but that is IMO a symptom of God-o-phobia. You would sanctify your preference as more reasonable and honest without the slightest reason to do so. THAT, my friend, is real obtuseness. Just objectively consider the EXISTING attributes and forget your additional ones that may or may not exist. If they do not qualify as God you have serious God-o-phobia issues.
God-phobia? Seriously? That seems awfully desperate.
Do you know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? Science is based on the former -building from simple evidence to develop broader principles- while your argument is based on inductive reasoning - beginning with broad, widely encompassing idea and looking for specific examples to support it.
Inductive reasoning is far more prone to bias and fallacy because you're looking for things the support a pre-existing concept. As such, it's highly prone to interpret virtually anything as supporting that idea whether it does or not. That's exactly what you're doing: Beginning with the premise 'god exists', and interpreting 'evidence' in such a way that supports this premise. It's a highly biased way of 'reasoning'.
As far as your 'fear o' god' assertion goes, in terms of god's existence, to me there seem to be two possibilities: 1) It does not exist, or 2) It exists, but has no influence over my life whatsoever. That is what I believe. Considering this, why would I have any fear of god since it either doesn't exist, or can't harm me if it does?
I'm not afraid of god, I just find the idea useless and silly. Really, that's how a feel; no fear, but rather contempt.
God-phobia? Seriously? That seems awfully desperate.
Do you know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? Science is based on the former -building from simple evidence to develop broader principles- while your argument is based on inductive reasoning - beginning with broad, widely encompassing idea and looking for specific examples to support it.
Inductive reasoning is far more prone to bias and fallacy because you're looking for things the support a pre-existing concept. As such, it's highly prone to interpret virtually anything as supporting that idea whether it does or not. That's exactly what you're doing: Beginning with the premise 'god exists', and interpreting 'evidence' in such a way that supports this premise. It's a highly biased way of 'reasoning'.
As far as your 'fear o' god' assertion goes, in terms of god's existence, to me there seem to be two possibilities: 1) It does not exist, or 2) It exists, but has no influence over my life whatsoever. That is what I believe. Considering this, why would I have any fear of god since it either doesn't exist, or can't harm me if it does?
I'm not afraid of god, I just find the idea useless and silly. Really, that's how a feel; no fear, but rather contempt.
As usual, a flawed argument that is based on the concept of God with the attributes assigned to Religious Deities and basically dictating God must be a being or entity that must be "feared" to be God.
The reasoning is simple and logical as per the question is, "Does God Exist?"
First, you must define God. The most logical, reasonable, and unbiased way would be to refer to a known expert at providing meanings and definitions. I endorse Merriam-Webster for this purpose, as it is inarguably one of the most well-known and respected sources for this information and data.
NOW...determine if there is anything that objectively exists that meets that expert and unbiased definitive standard.
I Submit: If you do this...you will see the unbiased logic and reason in giving the title "GOD" to "ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED".
As usual, a flawed argument that is based on the concept of God with the attributes assigned to Religious Deities and basically dictating God must be a being or entity that must be "feared" to be God.
The reasoning is simple and logical as per the question is, "Does God Exist?"
First, you must define God. The most logical, reasonable, and unbiased way would be to refer to a known expert at providing meanings and definitions. I endorse Merriam-Webster for this purpose, as it is inarguably one of the most well-known and respected sources for this information and data.
NOW...determine if there is anything that objectively exists that meets that expert and unbiased definitive standard.
I Submit: If you do this...you will see the unbiased logic and reason in giving the title "GOD" to "ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED".
Care to quote your source?
I'd like to illustrate how you don't know how to read a dictionary which you are so heavily placing your definition on.
I'd like to illustrate how you don't know how to read a dictionary which you are so heavily placing your definition on.
Are you really not capable of handling what you requested? You could have done it in less time than your post took!
It is very simple...go to Merriam-Webster and look up the definition of G-O-D.
Note the Full Definition, as this would be a unbiased expert source of all meanings that apply.
Get back to us when you've done it and you can let us all know what you've found out about that.
Are you really not capable of handling what you requested? You could have done it in less time than your post took!
It is very simple...go to Merriam-Webster and look up the definition of G-O-D.
Note the Full Definition, as this would be a unbiased expert source of all meanings that apply.
Get back to us when you've done it and you can let us all know what you've found out about that.
Ah yes I could have. But I was more interested in seeing if you had the gall to post it yourself or would prefer to weasel out of it. I'm taking it as the latter.
Now lets see here...here's the Merriam-Webster definition I happened to find...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of god
1 capitalized : 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
b Christian 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
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
So...let me see here. You are taking "the supreme or ultimate reality: as" and just stopping at the ":" and somehow taking that to mean "everything = god"? That's not the way the dictionary works, nor indicative of how a colon is to be treated. It is not a full stop. That is what a period is for. See how I did that.
The (a) and the (b) are the definition [1] variants. They are each a continuation of the intro sentence "the supreme or ultimate reality: as".
The way that definition [1] is to be read is as either of the following....
(a) the supreme or ultimate reality: as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
(b) the supreme or ultimate reality: as Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
You don't get to just stop wherever you want in the middle. Not if you are trying to use it as your case for rationality and authority.
So which one of these are you going with? Because 2, 3, and 4 are certainly not what you seem to be using for your god-claims...or No-God-aphobia.
This position completely ignores the ATTRIBUTES of this nature "We do not know." It is the attributes that AT A MINIMUM qualify it as a God. You apply additional attributes that we have not discovered and may never discover to reject it as God, but that is IMO a symptom of God-o-phobia. You would sanctify your preference as more reasonable and honest without the slightest reason to do so. THAT, my friend, is real obtuseness. Just objectively consider the EXISTING attributes and forget your additional ones that may or may not exist. If they do not qualify as God you have serious God-o-phobia issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle
Do you know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? Science is based on the former -building from simple evidence to develop broader principles- while your argument is based on inductive reasoning - beginning with broad, widely encompassing idea and looking for specific examples to support it.
Inductive reasoning is far more prone to bias and fallacy because you're looking for things the support a pre-existing concept. As such, it's highly prone to interpret virtually anything as supporting that idea whether it does or not. That's exactly what you're doing: Beginning with the premise 'god exists', and interpreting 'evidence' in such a way that supports this premise. It's a highly biased way of 'reasoning'.
As far as your 'fear o' god' assertion goes, in terms of god's existence, to me there seem to be two possibilities: 1) It does not exist, or 2) It exists, but has no influence over my life whatsoever. That is what I believe. Considering this, why would I have any fear of god since it either doesn't exist, or can't harm me if it does?
I'm not afraid of god, I just find the idea useless and silly. Really, that's how a feel; no fear, but rather contempt.
Seriously, you want to go there?? Deductive and inductive reasoning??? First, the fear is NOT of God, but of the concept of God which carries a lot of religious baggage. It is that religious baggage that you probably seek NOT to validate, which is perfectly legitimate. But you are conflating two separate issues. The only issue in play here is that of existence, and that is a science issue. All the religious baggage involves beliefs ABOUT God that have no relevance to the existence question. We do not answer existential questions on the basis of beliefs. Science is the arbiter of those issues.
I asked you to use your deductive model when I said to objectively consider all the attributes we have discovered about our reality. It is THOSE attributes, and those alone, that should qualify it as God to any reasonable unbiased mind. You apparently want to proceed from a biased preconceived position of "No God" until there is evidence of one that meets YOUR criteria. But you do NOT explain or justify eliminating as evidence of God all that we already know about our reality. So, just who is using inductive reasoning???
Ah yes I could have. But I was more interested in seeing if you had the gall to post it yourself or would prefer to weasel out of it. I'm taking it as the latter.
Now lets see here...here's the Merriam-Webster definition I happened to find...
So...let me see here. You are taking "the supreme or ultimate reality: as" and just stopping at the ":" and somehow taking that to mean "everything = god"? That's not the way the dictionary works, nor indicative of how a colon is to be treated. It is not a full stop. That is what a period is for. See how I did that.
The (a) and the (b) are the definition [1] variants. They are each a continuation of the intro sentence "the supreme or ultimate reality: as".
The way that definition [1] is to be read is as either of the following....
(a) the supreme or ultimate reality: as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
(b) the supreme or ultimate reality: as Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
You don't get to just stop wherever you want in the middle. Not if you are trying to use it as your case for rationality and authority.
So which one of these are you going with? Because 2, 3, and 4 are certainly not what you seem to be using for your god-claims...or No-God-aphobia.
Good job!
I've posted that definition many, many times. I can prove that if you'd like.
Of course, to make a unbiased determination of what defines "God" it would be reasonable to contend that ANY and ALL of those meanings applied.
While it may be debateable that this, that, or the other might or might not be perceived as "Something of Supreme Value"...certainly it wouldn't be reasonably debateable that "ALL/EVERYTHING" in totality could be considered NOT "Something of Supreme Value".
It thus objectively comports definitively as "God"...and, "ALL/EVERYTHING" objectively exists. Thus, GOD exists!
See how simple, logical, and reasonable that argument is?
I await your rebuttal. Though...there is none that is logical and reasonable.
Good job!
Of course, to make a unbiased determination of what defines "God" it would be reasonable to contend that ANY and ALL of those meanings applied.
While it may be debateable that this, that, or the other might or might not be perceived as "Something of Supreme Value"...certainly it wouldn't be reasonably debateable that "ALL/EVERYTHING" in totality could be considered NOT "Something of Supreme Value".
It thus objectively comports definitively as "God"...and, "ALL/EVERYTHING" objectively exists. Thus, GOD exists!
See how simple, logical, and reasonable that argument is?
I await your rebuttal. Though...there is none that is logical and reasonable.
Again you are ignoring half of the definition. If you want to assert that everything is the Supreme reality, then you are also taking on the rest of it.
So how how did you determine that everything is a Being? Or is a "who"? That's suggestive of something other than everything. Or something outside of the everything we are aware of.
How did you determine that everything is perfect in power, wisdom, and least of all goodness? I'll put aside power and wisdom for the moment....but perfect in goodness? What measuring stick is being used for that one?
And how about the ruler? Is one who rules not planning or sentient in any way? Does everything rule? Whomever everything might be?
Again, you are under no obligation to be rational, as the dictionary confirms. And I'm quite happy to speculate on any topic, including god-claims. But this particular claim is simply relabeling terms and calling it evidence because the thing you rename exists, evidently. And all it evidences is that something exists, and nothing else about how or why or even if there was ever a point of non-existence.
Again you are ignoring half of the definition. If you want to assert that everything is the Supreme reality, then you are also taking on the rest of it.
So how how did you determine that everything is a Being? Or is a "who"? That's suggestive of something other than everything. Or something outside of the everything we are aware of.
How did you determine that everything is perfect in power, wisdom, and least of all goodness? I'll put aside power and wisdom for the moment....but perfect in goodness? What measuring stick is being used for that one?
And how about the ruler? Is one who rules not planning or sentient in any way? Does everything rule? Whomever everything might be?
Again, you are under no obligation to be rational, as the dictionary confirms. And I'm quite happy to speculate on any topic, including god-claims. But this particular claim is simply relabeling terms and calling it evidence because the thing you rename exists, evidently. And all it evidences is that something exists, and nothing else about how or why or even if there was ever a point of non-existence.
Any and all of the definition applies...any other way is biased.
ANY perception of GOD, that comports with ANY of the meanings must be acceptable, or that is irrationally biased and prejudical.
My perception of "ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED" as "Something of Supreme Value" comports with that meaning.
Any person or thing that one could show to objectively exist that comports with any of the other noted meanings must be reasonably acceptable AS WELL...or it would not be unbiased and reasonable.
It would be up to those to prove the objective existence of their perception that would validate what they perceive to be "God". Like I did with my perception of God.
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.
