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.
Wrong, Freak, Our ignorance about it is not proof of anything. Its characteristics define its status if anything can define a God.
Really? A few posts ago you said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I can think of nothing more God-like than WHATEVER IT IS that is responsible for the very existence and operation of our reality, life, consciousness, intelligence, evolution, the physical and chemical laws that govern our reality instead of chaos, etc. You apparently do not give it a single thought and simply accept its ubiquitous awe-inspiring wondrousness.
That sure looks like an "appeal to mystery" to me.
You even put the phrase "whatever it is" in all-caps.
As I said above, neither is fully supportable, but based just on its characteristics the unknown source of our reality is a God.
Because I am only characterizing what DOES exist using its characteristics to define its status.
I don't dismiss them, I find them insufficient given the existence of consciousness and intelligence.
I couldn't agree more. It is the science that you laud that is responsible for my understanding.
Wrong, Freak, Our ignorance about it is not proof of anything. Its characteristics define its status if anything can define a God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Really? A few posts ago you said this:
That sure looks like an "appeal to mystery" to me.
You even put the phrase "whatever it is" in all-caps.
Your reading comp is seriously deficient. There is no mystery. Our reality (whatever it is) and (however it came to be) IS the undeniable source of everything that exists, including all life, consciousness, and intelligence, laws, evolution, etc. etc. Those are FACTS, NOT mysteries. It is those FACTS that define its status as a God.
Composition fallacy is a BS refusal to address the origin issue objectively regarding the fundamental composition of consciousness as a completely unique aspect of reality. Small minds sailing on materialistic seas seem to flounder on the reef of such abstract conundrums.
"Small minds" "Your reading comp is seriously deficient."
You really have nothing but invective to fling around do you. People do not see things your way - they must be mentally deficient in one way or another. That is essentially your entire argument on any subject. If that behaviour is representative of a philosophy of "agape love" - then you can keep your philosophy. I do not want to act that way.
The composition is considered a fallacy for a reason. Just because you want to perform that fallacy - does not negate it being a fallacy.
_your_ claim is that the universe itself is somehow conscious - and _your_ claim is that this universe visited us in human form one time. These claims you make entirely without evidence - just insult.
And no - no one here is "refusing to address the origin issue". We do address it. We address it by attempting to find evidence that tells us how and why we are here. We seek the explanation - to over come out ignorance - for our origins. Meanwhile woo merchants such as yourself _use_ that ignorance _as evidence_ for the fantasy they have invented and made up.
Acknowledging our ignorances and trying to over come them is the _exact opposite_ of refusal to address it. _use_ of those ignorances as arguments is nothing more than your usual "God of the Gaps" ploy.
As I said above, neither is fully supportable, but based just on its characteristics the unknown source of our reality is a God.
Because I am only characterizing what DOES exist using its characteristics to define its status.
I don't dismiss them, I find them insufficient given the existence of consciousness and intelligence.
I couldn't agree more. It is the science that you laud that is responsible for my understanding.
Wrong, Freak, Our ignorance about it is not proof of anything. Its characteristics define its status if anything can define a God.
The characteristics of our universe make it God? How so? Are you playing the Gldn game here? Just renaming something we have a name for? You guys really are the same...
You say you are "characterizing what DOES exist" to define its status.... Okay... Please explain to me how you make the jump from "it is the universe and it exists" to "the universe exists, and is God, and it wrote the Bible and sent Jesus". Because, and correct me if I am wrong here, you do believe in the Bible and Jesus, no?
People also find your beliefs "insufficient". Are they wrong? Are you wrong? How do you know? From where I am standing, it is simply you sitting there telling everyone that they are wrong, and you know the only truth. Arrogance.
As I said above, neither is fully supportable, but based just on its characteristics the unknown source of our reality is a God.
Because I am only characterizing what DOES exist using its characteristics to define its status.
I don't dismiss them, I find them insufficient given the existence of consciousness and intelligence.
I couldn't agree more. It is the science that you laud that is responsible for my understanding.
Wrong, Freak, Our ignorance about it is not proof of anything. Its characteristics define its status if anything can define a God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
The characteristics of our universe make it God? How so? Are you playing the Gldn game here? Just renaming something we have a name for? You guys really are the same...
No it is NOT just a renaming. It is the most fundamental definition of God - the source of everything that exists, the laws instead of chaos, life, consciousness, intelligence, -EVERYTHING. Hard to be more of a God than that.
Quote:
You say you are "characterizing what DOES exist" to define its status.... Okay... Please explain to me how you make the jump from "it is the universe and it exists" to "the universe exists, and is God, and it wrote the Bible and sent Jesus". Because, and correct me if I am wrong here, you do believe in the Bible and Jesus, no?
You make the same leap from what we KNOW of God by its characteristics to what some of us BELIEVE ABOUT God. They are not the same and they are founded on different premises.
Quote:
People also find your beliefs "insufficient". Are they wrong? Are you wrong? How do you know? From where I am standing, it is simply you sitting there telling everyone that they are wrong, and you know the only truth. Arrogance.
I am explaining my views and DEFENDING them against attack, that is NOT arrogance. When someone mischaracterizes my views (some do so repeatedly), it is not arrogance to correct them and defend my views.
No it is NOT just a renaming. It is the most fundamental definition of God - the source of everything that exists, the laws instead of chaos, life, consciousness, intelligence, -EVERYTHING.
Yes, renaming. It is renaming. I don't care if it's "EVERYTHING" you're renaming or just "SOMETHING", it's still renaming.
What I wanna know is why you and Glden insist on calling EVERYTHING God? So you can come into the religious forums and pretend it's got something to do with belief and tell everyone they're wrong?
I don't know if you also follow Glden in the "I can prove atheism objectively wrong" mentality which, by the way is so riddled with fallacies it's ridiculous, but really it just comes off as a joke. It looks like trolling.
No it is NOT just a renaming. It is the most fundamental definition of God - the source of everything that exists, the laws instead of chaos, life, consciousness, intelligence, -EVERYTHING. Hard to be more of a God than that.
So even if the Universe is not "conscious" (for lack of a better word here), then you would still consider it God? If the Universe does NOTHING but simply exist, you would still consider it "a God"? Because that doesn't seem to be what you believe, yet it seems to be what you are saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You make the same leap from what we KNOW of God by its characteristics to what some of us BELIEVE ABOUT God. They are not the same and they are founded on different premises.
I am not making a leap. I am asking YOU about YOUR beliefs. This wasn't some blanket question for everyone, it is meant for YOU. You don't "KNOW" squat about God. You have your beliefs, but nothing to back them up but a "vision" you had. Simply saying, "The Universe is our creator, God is a creator, therefore the Universe is God" is not proof. It is you stating that you BELIEVE the universe is God.
My questions to you were meant to get an explanation as to how YOU made the LEAP from "The Universe is God", to "The Universe is God, and it is the God of the New Testament, and Jesus too!"... which again, correct me if I am wrong, but I distinctly remember you talking about Jesus/God and the Bible like it has some grand truth in it. So whether you admit it or not, you are not a pantheist... You are some weird Christian/Pantheist hybrid or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am explaining my views and DEFENDING them against attack, that is NOT arrogance. When someone mischaracterizes my views (some do so repeatedly), it is not arrogance to correct them and defend my views.
It is arrogance when you continuously call other stupid for not believing as you do. It is arrogance when you tell people they are idiots for not seeing the universe as God. It is arrogance to think you had some super special "vision" from God that showed you the way. It is arrogance when you tell people they have "small minds" for not blindly accepting YOUR version of reality.
I could go on, but I think everyone will get the picture.... Even the "small minded" ones of us.
No it is NOT just a renaming. It is the most fundamental definition of God - the source of everything that exists, the laws instead of chaos, life, consciousness, intelligence, -EVERYTHING. Hard to be more of a God than that.You make the same leap from what we KNOW of God by its characteristics to what some of us BELIEVE ABOUT God. They are not the same and they are founded on different premises.I am explaining my views and DEFENDING them against attack, that is NOT arrogance. When someone mischaracterizes my views (some do so repeatedly), it is not arrogance to correct them and defend my views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
Yes, renaming. It is renaming. I don't care if it's "EVERYTHING" you're renaming or just "SOMETHING", it's still renaming.
What I wanna know is why you and Glden insist on calling EVERYTHING God? So you can come into the religious forums and pretend it's got something to do with belief and tell everyone they're wrong?
I don't know if you also follow Glden in the "I can prove atheism objectively wrong" mentality which, by the way is so riddled with fallacies it's ridiculous, but really it just comes off as a joke. It looks like trolling.
Stop knee-jerking in defense of your atheism and actually try to LISTEN to what I am actually saying! I am NOT Gldn. There are two issues NOT just one. There is the EXISTENCE of God issue and the BELIEFS ABOUT God issue. You seem unable to separate them. The first is a scientific question and what we know about our reality more than justifies the appellation God to anyone who does not have a phobia about the name. The intense aversion to the myriad religious beliefs so totally corrupts any objective consideration of the existence issue and entangles them irretrievably for most atheists.
Yes, renaming. It is renaming. I don't care if it's "EVERYTHING" you're renaming or just "SOMETHING", it's still renaming.
What I wanna know is why you and Glden insist on calling EVERYTHING God? So you can come into the religious forums and pretend it's got something to do with belief and tell everyone they're wrong?
I don't know if you also follow Glden in the "I can prove atheism objectively wrong" mentality which, by the way is so riddled with fallacies it's ridiculous, but really it just comes off as a joke. It looks like trolling.
That is what they seem incapable of understanding. I am not sure how it could be explained anymore than it already has been though. They simply relabel/rename something that we already call the Universe, and then exclaim, "You are IDIOTS if you don't see that the Universe is God!!!", and proceed to act like they know some grand truth and everyone else are just dumb peons incapable of rational thought.
In reality, they are people who feel a NEED (Yes, a need)to believe in something larger than themselves, and they choose this vague concept of "everything is God" and cling to it like a life raft. Some of us have grown past that need.
Stop knee-jerking in defense of your atheism and actually try to LISTEN to what I am actually saying! I am NOT Gldn. There are two issues NOT just one. There is the EXISTENCE of God issue and the BELIEFS ABOUT God issue. You seem unable to separate them. The first is a scientific question and what we know about our reality more than justifies the appellation God to anyone who does not have a phobia about the name. The intense aversion to the myriad religious beliefs so totally corrupts any objective consideration of the existence issue and entangles them irretrievably for most atheists.
So, renaming the Universe then? Thanks for confirming!
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.
