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.
You didn't miss it. You just ignore it. It was pointed out that to pick a sub -definition of "god" was to ignore all the other entries which are actually more relevant to a religion forum. You also picked up Mystic's 'everything' = "God" therefore God exists. You conceded that for that title to be more appropriate than 'nature' it would have to be intelligent and forward -planning. I asked you to show that was so. Still waiting and indeed you are purporting to have 'missed it'.
I just said...I accept all the definitions. There are no "sub" definitions...just "definitions".
It would be on anyone that has a perception of GOD that comports with any of the other definitions to substantiate the objective existence of that God...like I do for my perception.
I didn’t say G-O-D had to be intelligent & forward-planning...I said GOD was intelligent and forward planning...to the degree that which comprises God is intelligent and forward-planning.
I am surprised you still mess that up...I have explained it so many times and in so many ways, with analogies and all.
It gets tedious Bro...and this is supposed to be fun for me.
Debate the, "Got evidence?", issue of the thread.
There IS objective evidence of existence for a perception of GOD that comports with the known definition of GOD. Thus GOD. And, don't forget, Atheism is eliminated by this evidence for GOD.
Debate THAT.
What is this "evidence" you people demand ?
Are you sure you even want it ?
We "deists" don't go around
demanding evidence from atheists for the NON-existence of God.
By placing this illogical burden on us, you presume that the NON-
existence of God is predisposed, which is b.s.
That is correct. No evidence indicates non-existence. So until such time as actual evidence is produced, the default position is non-existence. So why do we keep asking for evidence? Perhaps we are being naive or perhaps it's because your side keeps making these claims of an existence.
I just said...I accept all the definitions. There are no "sub" definitions...just "definitions".
It would be on anyone that has a perception of GOD that comports with any of the other definitions to substantiate the objective existence of that God...like I do for my perception.
I didn’t say G-O-D had to be intelligent & forward-planning...I said GOD was intelligent and forward planning...to the degree that which comprises God is intelligent and forward-planning.
I am surprised you still mess that up...I have explained it so many times and in so many ways, with analogies and all.
It gets tedious Bro...and this is supposed to be fun for me.
Debate the, "Got evidence?", issue of the thread.
There IS objective evidence of existence for a perception of GOD that comports with the known definition of GOD. Thus GOD. And, don't forget, Atheism is eliminated by this evidence for GOD.
Debate THAT.
But you only use one definition (I recall it was at the end, thus 'sub' definition) - one that really has no place in a religion forum - and refuse to admit the others in discussion. Thus your claim to 'accept' all the others is so close to dishonest that I could not live on the difference.
The same applies to what actually was the wording you used. What matters is that intelligent and forward -planning must be a characteristic of God. Since you now seem to have recalled what you claimed to have 'missed', you may recall that I asked you to substantiate that claim, or drop the 'God' label in favour of the more appropriate one: "Nature". Yes I do recall that you tried to wriggle out of it with "to the degree that which comprises God is intelligent and forward-planning." which of course requires some demonstrable forward -planning intelligence more than just the natural processes of physics or biology. Your evasion just shows up your dishonest wriggling as much as your "tired of explaining it" Act.
You never did..or I must have missed it. Until then your call for a debate on semantic dickering about the god -label merely points up the poverty, invalidity and dishonesty of your whole argument.
I would certainly be willing to discuss (though debate is certainly what it would become) any evidence for either IntelligentNature-god or any other kind. You would be the first to produce anything worthwhile.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-21-2016 at 06:36 AM..
But you only use one definition (I recall it was at the end, thus 'sub' definition) - one that really has no place in a religion forum - and refuse to admit the others in discussion. Thus your claim to 'accept' all the others is so close to dishonest that I could not live on the difference.
The same applies to what actually was the wording you used. What matters is that intelligent and forward -planning must be a characteristic of God. Since you now seem to have recalled what you claimed to have 'missed', you may recall that I asked you to substantiate that claim, or drop the 'God' label in favour of the more appropriate one: "Nature". Yes I do recall that you tried to wriggle out of it with "to the degree that which comprises God is intelligent and forward-planning." which of course requires some demonstrable forward -planning intelligence more than just the natural processes of physics or biology. Your evasion just shows up your dishonest wriggling as much as your "tired of explaining it" Act.
You never did..or I must have missed it. Until then your call for a debate on semantic dickering about the god -label merely points up the poverty, invalidity and dishonesty of your whole argument.
I would certainly be willing to discuss (though debate is certainly what it would become) any evidence for either IntelligentNature-god or any other kind. You would be the first to produce anything worthwhile.
This is not just the "Religion" forum. It was Religion & Philosophy, now, Religion & Spirituality.
Pantheism and Panentheisim certainly fit in...at least, if not more, than Atheism.
Discussions of "Bald as a Hair Color" on a Beauty Salon board...and the merit of "Not Collecting Stamps" on a Philately Forum...seem misplaced, and actually very strange to me. But, that's just my own opinion.
Indeed, Pantheism and panentheism fit in there if they are talking about a 'divine/supernatural'...(can't think of any other way to put it) entity that plans and executes those plans. The kind of god that is everything without that faculty is 'nature' and discussion of it is not appropriate here. Nor is the definition that applies to it.
No you are NOT. You are looking for any evidence of a God or creator OTHER THAN the one you implicitly accept as responsible for the existence of our current reality including your existence. You blindly accept the existence of our reality without the slightest idea what IT IS or why it is. That is blindly accepting a God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Indeed, Pantheism and panentheism fit in there if they are talking about a 'divine/supernatural'...(can't think of any other way to put it) entity that plans and executes those plans. The kind of god that is everything without that faculty is 'nature' and discussion of it is not appropriate here. Nor is the definition that applies to it.
I would be happy to entertain your evidence that everything that exists is NOT intelligent, conscious and therefore NOT God. Otherwise, your proclamation that it doesn't belong here is void. How do you KNOW it is none of those things or is that merely your belief?
I would be happy to entertain your evidence that everything that exists is NOT intelligent, conscious and therefore NOT God. Otherwise, your proclamation that it doesn't belong here is void. How do you KNOW it is none of those things or is that merely your belief?
Reversing the burden of proof? It is for you to present evidence of this intelligent nature that we can legitimately label God and no need for quotes. And I clobbered your efforts to overturn the materialist default a long time ago AND explained the evidence for a gradual emergence or "evolution" if you like of consciousness along with life. To which you could only make the footling objection that this was just what was observed. So is everything we examine and scientifically prove.
So you see, the burden of proof of this intelligent cosmos is on you and I have discharged a fair burden of proof on my part that I didn't need to.
You two seem to think "evidence" must be demonstrative of "proof" to be "evidence".
It doesn't. But it is "evidence", regardless.
What I did was prove it is all too frequently bad or misleading evidence. What you've done is prove there are those that don't give a damn if it is bad or misleading if they choose to believe it.
Just don't expect intelligent people to have respect for those who don't exercise their own.
What I did was prove it is all too frequently bad or misleading evidence. What you've done is prove there are those that don't give a damn if it is bad or misleading if they choose to believe it.
Just don't expect intelligent people to have respect for those who don't exercise their own.
You didn’t already know people often believe faulty evidence?
I may hold a higher standard...but that doesn't then make me unaware of how things go down in this world a lotta the time.
My point was that "eyewitness testimony" and "written records" are, in fact, well known to be considered "evidence" to take under consideration.
All "evidence" should be evaluated to see whether it is persuasive. We know the parameters for evaluating that. Tinkering with dictionary definitions is not evidence of anything but a lack of any valid evidence. We are still waiting for some. I/D has failed. In a court of law, too. What more have you got to show that nature is intelligent and deserves the God -label?
Mystic did suggest the idea that cosmc consciousness (Aka "God") became coalesced rather like a swarm of gnats in certain places where whodathunkit, humans were hanging about. Thus we have reasoning. That as I recall had a problem in that the whole of the Cosmic consciousness should be as reasoning as us, or more so, or it is hardly "God". If not, it is better explained by "emergence" of intelligence (as did Life) through animal reactions and in fact back to chemical reactions. In other words it is evidence for nature, not a Cosmic - mind "God".
Just getting that one out the way.
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.
Until then your call for a debate on semantic dickering about the god -label merely points up the poverty, invalidity and dishonesty of your whole argument.
is certainly what it would become) any evidence for either IntelligentNature-god or any other kind. You would be the first to produce anything worthwhile.
It is for you to present evidence of this intelligent nature that we can legitimately label God and no need for quotes. And I clobbered your efforts to overturn the materialist default a long time ago AND explained the evidence for a gradual emergence or "evolution" if you like of consciousness along with life. To which you could only make the footling objection that this was just what was observed. So is everything we examine and scientifically prove.
