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 know what emergence means, Arach. Just because there are highly abstract semantic creations that can be called emergent phenomena does NOT validate the use of emergence as a catch-all euphemism for those actual phenomena that we can NOT explain. Emergence is observed but except for those highly abstract instances involving semantic creation, they explain nothing.Those uses that I challenge fit the description - they are a pretense to explanation when "they haven't got a clue." Those are the only uses I am challenging.
I believe we are in agreement about the foolishness of blck/white, all-or-nothing thinking.It is NOT about the process that produces our awareness. It is about the product that is produced by it and where it resides. That is the point.
emergence is not "highly abstract". all it means is that "oh, we didn't expect that." that's it. Like "god". We are part of a system that may be life. The regular run of the mill atheist would say "oh, I didn't expect that". If they were to admit they are wrong that is. I am not talking about the fundy or militant types. they are what they are.
"the product that is produced by it",
that's an assumption that is flawed until we learn more. It assums way more than we know. The building blocks of the universe make the universe alive. That life then produced us. That is a valid thought based on what we see. For the people that can't see past the end of their noses I would just use earth's Biosphere. To any individual, like you or me, it would seem so big that its infinite. it explains a lot. And it does so without magic and so less important.
Not true. I have named its attributes and capabilities and accomplishments as that of God. You have yet to refute their Godly character. You just exercise your preference for ignorance about it because of your allergy to the name. Your focus on the BELIEFS ABOUT GOD in the myriad religions exposes your only issues, NOT the existence of God. How do you know it didn't exist? Why isn't the Big Bang just more evidence of God's attributes and power. Somehow blasting absolutely everything we know about into existence certainly seems to have the stature of a God accomplishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
I'll ask again. So what? So you have decided to call the universe God based on its superior relationship to us . What significance does this have ? What does it matter ? What is the difference between your God-as-universe and the atheists simple physical non-God universe ?
What does your semantics accomplish ?
It takes the unsupportable EXISTENCE question off the table. At a minimum the EXISTENCE of God can NOT legitimately be questioned and the annoying "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe nonsense" is thoroughly eliminated from discourse about the OTHER attributes that ARE in question. There IS far more than a shred of evidence and reason to believe.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-20-2016 at 04:48 PM..
It takes the unsupportable EXISTENCE question off the table. At a minimum the EXISTENCE of God can NOT legitimately be questioned and the annoying "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe nonsense" is thoroughly eliminated from discourse about the OTHER attributes that ARE in question. There IS far more that a shred of evidence and reason to believe.
Relabeling the universe God doesn't prove the existence of anything other than that you have chosen to assign a theistic name to a physical structure for some silly reason. And it won't no matter how many times you claim this .
But beyond that , what else ? Is that it ? All this BS word salad for that ?
Do you even understand what people mean here when discussing God, theism, and atheism?
It takes the unsupportable EXISTENCE question off the table. At a minimum the EXISTENCE of God can NOT legitimately be questioned and the annoying "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe nonsense" is thoroughly eliminated from discourse about the OTHER attributes that ARE in question. There IS far more than a shred of evidence and reason to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Relabeling the universe God doesn't prove the existence of anything other than that you have chosen to assign a theistic name to a physical structure for some silly reason. And it won't no matter how many times you claim this .
It is NOT mere relabeling. It is acknowledging its actual stature and status which you ignore and dismiss in support of your allergy. You are so mired in physicality you actually think it is a physical structure! It is a field that manifests in myriad ways we can experience as physical with our consciousness field.
Quote:
But beyond that , what else ? Is that it ? All this BS for that ?
Establishing "more than a shred of evidence" for the existence of God and putting to the lie the atheist default is more than enough, thank you.
It is NOT mere relabeling. It is acknowledging its actual stature and status which you ignore and dismiss in support of your allergy. You are so mired in physicality you actually think it is a physical structure! It is a field that manifests in myriad ways we can experience as physical with our consciousness field.
It's calling the universe by a theistic term . Big whoop . You used a different name for what others call .....the universe. When I say a physical structure , I acknowledge that it is actually solidified energy , and all matter is just a physical manifestation of the energy of the universe .
Quote:
Establishing "more than a shred of evidence" for the existence of God and putting to the lie the atheist default is more than enough, thank you.
A smart answer from one who likely knows he cannot actually answer the question. You let me know when you feel capable of expounding a little more on the subject
But all you have established is that you have a psychological need to assign a theistic term for some reason to the universe .
Prima Facie!!It is the minimum criteria for God. Any and all other beliefs ABOUT God not validated by science are moot. How you perceive God is entirely up to you, but that God exists is NOT. God definitely exists using the minimal criteria. You can continue to argue the additional attributes all you want, but the existence issue is off the table. We have evidence of the existence of the minimal criteria for a God and you just have your preference for ignorance about it rather than accept it.
You can pretend to minimize the evidence of the attributes and their Godly stature by shorthanding it, but the scope of its power, control, ubiquity, and accomplishments cannot be minimized by saying "it exists so God exists." Its Godly attributes and accomplishments exist so God exists, at a minimum. What about the ATTRIBUTES and accomplishments of our reality are NOT Godly?????? Stop trying to pretend it is just mere existence. That is your defense mechanism in support of your allergy to God. Give me your best refutation of the attributes and accomplishments as NOT sufficiently Godly. BTW, refuting any of the myriad additional BELIEFS ABOUT God are NOT refutations of the attributes we know about and have evidence of.
Nothing but word games put forth as word salad. This is all I hear when I read your nonsense above.
"What I believe is right. You are just too stupid to understand. After all, the Universe exists, and according to me, the Universe is God, therefore God exists. That is all the proof needed. You are just to dumb to get it. I am just so much smarter and more enlightened than you, is all. I know 100% that I am right, and everyone else either agrees, or they are stupid and have an "allergy" to God."
All you and Gldn do is play word games. You are quibbling over semantics. You could be twins. You would be the well spoken one who thinks he is better than everyone else, and he couldcould be the slow younger brother who thinks he's cool, and of course, better than everyone else.
Does your "god" have any attributes other than simply existence? Does your "god" play any role in our universe? Because if not, it is no different than the simply, the universe. If that is the case, you are simply arguing over what to call the universe.
You both show that you NEED belief in your lives to feel special. I hate to break it to you, but just because you believe in something, that doesn't make it real. If that were the case, Bigfoot, aliens, and all sorts of other stuff is also real.
Does your "god" have any attributes other than simply existence? Does your "god" play any role in our universe? Because if not, it is no different than the simply, the universe. If that is the case, you are simply arguing over what to call the universe.
Prima Facie!!It is the minimum criteria for God. Any and all other beliefs ABOUT God not validated by science are moot. How you perceive God is entirely up to you, but that God exists is NOT. God definitely exists using the minimal criteria. You can continue to argue the additional attributes all you want, but the existence issue is off the table. We have evidence of the existence of the minimal criteria for a God and you just have your preference for ignorance about it rather than accept it.
You can pretend to minimize the evidence of the attributes and their Godly stature by shorthanding it, but the scope of its power, control, ubiquity, and accomplishments cannot be minimized by saying "it exists so God exists." Its Godly attributes and accomplishments exist so God exists, at a minimum. What about the ATTRIBUTES and accomplishments of our reality are NOT Godly?????? Stop trying to pretend it is just mere existence. That is your defense mechanism in support of your allergy to God. Give me your best refutation of the attributes and accomplishments as NOT sufficiently Godly. BTW, refuting any of the myriad additional BELIEFS ABOUT God are NOT refutations of the attributes we know about and have evidence of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
Does your "god" have any attributes other than simply existence? Does your "god" play any role in our universe? Because if not, it is no different than the simply, the universe. If that is the case, you are simply arguing over what to call the universe.
This reveals that either you are not reading my posts and are just responding defensively in knee-jerk fashion or you really don't get it. It is the ATTRIBUTES and accomplishments that I am referring to. You ARE aware that our reality acts on us and controls and constrains us in myriad ways according to processes and protocols we have nothing to do with, evolution being just one of many. You call them "natural laws." I call them God's laws. Odd that you would prefer a non-existent law-giver because you are ignorant of it and the why of it.
Mystic, Mystic, Mystic. Yet another bod has sussed you and you are still playing the same semantic game. Talking about 'beliefs' abut God is a red herring. Talking about conditions needed for life is I/D (Aka Creationism). Talking about what we don't know is irrelevant.
They may not have thought it through to where evidence of Forward -planning intelligence is where one applies the God label in a valid way, but that is the conclusion implied by sussing the semantic trick.
For the moment, that everyone susses the trick ought to have sunk in, but you still keep playing the trick that everyone sees through.
This reveals that either you are not reading my posts and are just responding defensively in knee-jerk fashion or you really don't get it. It is the ATTRIBUTES and accomplishments that I am referring to. You ARE aware that our reality acts on us and controls and constrains us in myriad ways according to processes and protocols we have nothing to do with, evolution being just one of many. You call them "natural laws." I call them God's laws. Odd that you would prefer a non-existent law-giver because you are ignorant of it and the why of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Mystic, Mystic, Mystic. Yet another bod has sussed you and you are still playing the same semantic game. Talking about 'beliefs' abut God is a red herring. Talking about conditions needed for life is I/D (Aka Creationism). Talking about what we don't know is irrelevant.
They may not have thought it through to where evidence of Forward -planning intelligence is where one applies the God label in a valid way, but that is the conclusion implied by sussing the semantic trick.
For the moment, that everyone susses the trick ought to have sunk in, but you still keep playing the trick that everyone sees through.
Arq, Arq, Arq, my old Bud. How much forward planning do you do about how the cells and biota that comprise your body and mind function????Why must it be necessary for God to do so for His body and mind which is our entire reality?
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.
