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.
And I will, once again, show you why these analogies don't work...
Of course it doesn't, but it does show that perception matters, in both directions. If you consider someone a friend, and I consider them an enemy, then obviously they are not MY friend. It is the same thing as YOUR version of God. If you consider it true, and I do not, then obviously it is not objectively true to everyone, as you keep saying.
The friend analogy doesn't work, because you are simply saying they are YOUR friend. You are not saying they are EVERYONES friend, or that EVERYONE HAS to see them as their friend, which is what you are doing with your version of God.
It doesn't, which is my point! Of course it doesn't nullify their status as my or your friend if one of us doesn't think of them as a friend. It does show that they aren't objectively a friend to everyone though, which is what you keep saying about your version of God.
Sure, within the framework of yourself. If you have never, in your entire life (which would obviously never happen, but whatever) had a friend, or someone you consider a friend, then yes, you could reasonably make the claim that you see no evidence for friends existing. The large flaw in this, however, is that there is still evidence that friends exist in the real world. There is no evidence that "ALL/EVERYTHING" is God. Only YOUR perception.
Just as your perception means nothing to me, or anyone else. It has no power or force either. That is what you don't seem to grasp. YOUR perception only "proves" things to YOU, not to anyone else. It certainly doesn't prove your version of God, just as someone "perceiving" that Christian God is real proves it is.
You are like the people I see protesting the U.S. election conferring the title "President" upon Donald Trump (some do it every election cycle)...holding up signs that say "Not My President".
Ask Yourself: Because they don't consider or perceive him as "Presidential" for some reason, and proclaim his as "Not Their President"...does that negate his status as "President"?
Is he not, in fact, objectively "The President" regardless of if some don't consider him as such?
Which 'experts' specifically are you talking about?
Are you talking about people who come up with dictionary definitions of words?
Dictionaries just use 'God', not G-O-D
And I'm asking you to tell me specifically what that is.
I want you know how YOU GldnRule are defining what you think G-O-D is.
I don't want an 'experts' definition or a dictionary definition. As you were at pains to tell me earlier, there are many versions of god so I want to be exactly sure what we are talking about.
I want you to tell me what YOUR specific perception of G-O-D is.
Experts like Noah Webster, etc...yes, those people.
G-O-D is my way of denoting it spelled out with each individual letter...indicative of the word, in and of itself, with the meanings given to it by experts that provide the definitions and meanings of words and terms.
"G-O-D" is known to be expertly defined (among other relevant meanings) as "Something of Supreme Value".
It is debateable that any individual thing or groups of things is of "Supreme Value"....but "ALL/EVERYTHING" is unequivocally of "Supreme Value"...and thus, "G-O-D" definitively.
"ALL/EVERYTHING" also irrefutably exists. If anything exists "ALL" exists.
So...we now have an Entity that possess the attributes whereby it comports definitively as "G-O-D"...and it objectively exists.
THUS: That which is God objectively exists.
Now...we have here some that demand the definition and meaning of the title "G-O-D" be redacted and cherry-picked to just the meanings that denote Religious Deities. They seek to excise the meanings that would allow for other manifestations of God. They typically use some illogical ad Populum argument about what meaning "most people" think of when they consider "G-O-D".
But that is bogus...because I could do the same thing and say that since Religious Deities are not substantiated as objectively existing entities, they should not be considered...and those are the meanings that should be excised.
I consider and accept all meanings and definitions of "G-O-D".
Anyone perceiving any of the manifestations of "G-O-D" as defined...it is upon them to prove the objective existence of the God they perceive.
I can certainly prove the objective existence of the Pantheist manifestation of God.
You are like the people I see protesting the U.S. election conferring the title "President" upon Donald Trump (some do it every election cycle)...holding up signs that say "Not My President".
Ask Yourself: Because they don't consider or perceive him as "Presidential" for some reason, and proclaim his as "Not Their President"...does that negate his status as "President"?
Is he not, in fact, objectively "The President" regardless of if some don't consider him as such?
Okay, obviously you either don't understand what I am trying to say, or you are purposely trying to troll for a reaction.
In order to say "He is not my President", you are admitting he IS the President. They aren't literally saying, "Trump is not the President" or "I don't see evidence for Trump being President", either, as you seem to think they are. They are protesting what they see as a President who doesn't have their best interests in mind, and a President they think is illegitimate (for whatever the reason), hence the "Not my President" thing.
In order for that to make any since as to what I am saying in regards to your version of G-O-D, they would have to be saying they see no evidence that he IS the President. They aren't doing that, at all.
Okay, obviously you either don't understand what I am trying to say, or you are purposely trying to troll for a reaction.
In order to say "He is not my President", you are admitting he IS the President. They aren't literally saying, "Trump is not the President" or "I don't see evidence for Trump being President", either, as you seem to think they are. They are protesting what they see as a President who doesn't have their best interests in mind, and a President they think is illegitimate (for whatever the reason), hence the "Not my President" thing.
In order for that to make any since as to what I am saying in regards to your version of G-O-D, they would have to be saying they see no evidence that he IS the President. They aren't doing that, at all.
Right! "ALL/EVERYTHING" *is* God.
NOW you've got it!
You claiming that is not God to you, and that "There is no evidence for God"...does not change that.
It is just a bogus "protest" of what you see as a God that doesn't qualify as a Religious Deity, and a God you think is illegitimate (for whatever the reason)...hence the "Not God to Me" thing.
Right! "ALL/EVERYTHING" *is* God.
NOW you've got it!
You claiming that is not God to you, and that "There is no evidence for God"...does not change that.
It is just a bogus "protest" of what you see as a God that doesn't qualify as a Religious Deity, and a God you think is illegitimate (for whatever the reason)...hence the "Not God to Me" thing.
That's what you got out of my post? Really? Now I know you are just trolling for responses. I am saying I see no evidence for your version of God. I see no evidence to CALL it God. That isn't "protesting". That isn't saying it isn't "God" either, as I mentioned in my post to Mystic. It is simply me saying, "I don't see the evidence, therefore I am not calling it God." Dictionaries and other people's perceptions aren't evidence of existence. I am an agnostic, and make no knowledge claims as you do. I also don't get my belief system from the dictionary, or other people (Mystic) as you do.
There is no actual evidence for your version of God. Oh wait!! You have the definition that you cling to, that show the usage (You know the dictionary is common usages and their meanings, right? Not proof of existence?) some people use for the word G-O-D!! Yep, that is proof right there! You got all of us "ignorant" atheists by the short hairs!
So with that, have a great weekend getting your jollies trolling on message boards!
I do not agree with Gldn's solipsistic relegation of everything to perception. It works for him, but for me, there IS a God because of what it actually does and is responsible for in our reality, NOT because some perceive it as such. I don't know how you become more of a God than by establishing the very foundation of, rules for, and processes of our entire reality, not to mention the indisputable creation of life and consciousness itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What could be more of a God than that??? Consciousness exists and is absolutely essential to knowing anything. The fact that we have it and a rock does not seem to does NOT preclude its existence as an essential aspect of our reality, category error nonsense notwithstanding. The muscle cells in our body (as well as most of the other disparate cells that comprise us) do not seem to have it but that does NOT preclude our having it taken as a composite. That eviscerates any category error nonsense about our reality NOT having consciousness taken as a composite. If you can explain how a reality of seeming dead material without consciousness could produce the phenomenon of consciousness, I am all ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
Well, I am certainly no scientist, so I won't be able to explain that, at least at the moment. Maybe if I go back to college and get a PhD I could, but my lowly Masters in Marketing Management didn't prepare me to answer the question of how the universe started.
But allow me to ask you a question, that I hope will clear things up on my end at least.
Basically, what it seems to me you are saying, is that you believe what you do because "dead material without consciousness" could not produce consciousness, correct?
Well, actually it is a confluence of many things we DO KNOW that highlights that particular conundrum as crucial to the idea that our reality is conscious.
Quote:
My problem with that, is that we simply do not know that. We simply do not know how we came to be. See, the difference between myself, and you and Gldn, is that I don't believe in something for which there is no evidence (to me). Simply existing is not evidence (to me) that we were created by some greater consciousness. Could we have been created by such? Sure we could have. Until there is something more than the thoughts of men on the subject, I will continue to regard the Universe, and all the encompasses it, as I currently do: With the awe of the human mind.
If you see God in the Universe, then I have no issue with that. My issue, is the insistence, mainly from Gldn but sometimes from you as well, that the view held by nonbelievers is one of ignorance and lack of knowledge, simply because it doesn't fit YOUR belief. Perceptions differ, as I am sure you would agree, so insisting that your perception takes precedent over others just doesn't sit right with me.
Note: Just wanted to say, that even though I can get a little "rude and crude" as Gldn put it earlier in this thread, I have no issues with either of you. I have no issues with your beliefs either. (In fact, I have pondered the very thing myself, and have also concluded that if there is a God of any kind, that would probably be the most likely.) I also realize I can come off a little.... brash?... at times, but there is no animosity.
Gldn is particularly fond of inciting annoyance and controversy. I am not. It just seems to me that any rational human being who fully contemplates the FACT that our reality establishes the very foundation of, rules for, and processes of existence, not to mention the indisputable creation of life and consciousness itself has to acknowledge those KNOWN attributes as God at the very least. I hold no animosity toward anyone who disagrees with me. I simply wish to explain and defend my views. I do seem to exude a sense of talking down to people and that evokes a perception of hubris and arrogance but it is not intentional.
That's what you got out of my post? Really? Now I know you are just trolling for responses. I am saying I see no evidence for your version of God. I see no evidence to CALL it God. That isn't "protesting". That isn't saying it isn't "God" either, as I mentioned in my post to Mystic. It is simply me saying, "I don't see the evidence, therefore I am not calling it God." Dictionaries and other people's perceptions aren't evidence of existence. I am an agnostic, and make no knowledge claims as you do. I also don't get my belief system from the dictionary, or other people (Mystic) as you do.
There is no actual evidence for your version of God. Oh wait!! You have the definition that you cling to, that show the usage (You know the dictionary is common usages and their meanings, right? Not proof of existence?) some people use for the word G-O-D!! Yep, that is proof right there! You got all of us "ignorant" atheists by the short hairs!
So with that, have a great weekend getting your jollies trolling on message boards!
Look at you! Ur all twisted up!
Look, man...it's just an exchange with strangers on a Interweb Forum Board...don't get so worked up.
I would never accuse you of ill intentions just because you lack the God Perception ability most people have...and have a differing perspective because of it. It's no big deal.
Experts like Noah Webster, etc...yes, those people.
G-O-D is my way of denoting it spelled out with each individual letter...indicative of the word, in and of itself, with the meanings given to it by experts that provide the definitions and meanings of words and terms.
"G-O-D" is known to be expertly defined (among other relevant meanings) as "Something of Supreme Value".
It is debateable that any individual thing or groups of things is of "Supreme Value"....but "ALL/EVERYTHING" is unequivocally of "Supreme Value"...and thus, "G-O-D" definitively.
No not thus at all.
Nobody can deny that "ALL/EVERYTHING" exists. There is no 'thus' attached though. You are adding 'thus G-O-D'subjectively.
I don't deny ALL/EVERYTHING EXISTS. I don't deny that you see it all as G-O-D.
But I don't, I see it as nature. Both our points of view are valid, but they are both subjective not objective.
Quote:
"ALL/EVERYTHING" also irrefutably exists. If anything exists "ALL" exists.
So...we now have an Entity that possess the attributes whereby it comports definitively as "G-O-D"...and it objectively exists. THUS: That which is God objectively exists.
A subjective notion is based on a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions, senses, or perception. You see ALL/EVERYTHING as GOD. That is subjective. I see it as nature. That is also subjective.
Objective is the opposite of subjective and means the state or quality of being true, outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings or imaginings. Objectivity can be established via the scientific method and seeks to eliminate biases and subjective evaluations by relying on verifiable data.
Quote:
Now...we have here some that demand the definition and meaning of the title "G-O-D" be redacted and cherry-picked to just the meanings that denote Religious Deities. They seek to excise the meanings that would allow for other manifestations of God. They typically use some illogical ad Populum argument about what meaning "most people" think of when they consider "G-O-D".
But that is bogus...because I could do the same thing and say that since Religious Deities are not substantiated as objectively existing entities, they should not be considered...and those are the meanings that should be excised.
But that is exactly what you are saying. Although you claim to consider and accept all meanings of god, you ask that atheists don't do that, so you are actually the one doing the cherry picking here.
Quote:
I consider and accept all meanings and definitions of "G-O-D".
Anyone perceiving any of the manifestations of "G-O-D" as defined...it is upon them to prove the objective existence of the God they perceive.
I can certainly prove the objective existence of the Pantheist manifestation of God.
A pantheist manifestation of god is subjective not objective.
Okay, obviously you either don't understand what I am trying to say, or you are purposely trying to troll for a reaction.
In order to say "He is not my President", you are admitting he IS the President. They aren't literally saying, "Trump is not the President" or "I don't see evidence for Trump being President", either, as you seem to think they are. They are protesting what they see as a President who doesn't have their best interests in mind, and a President they think is illegitimate (for whatever the reason), hence the "Not my President" thing.
In order for that to make any since as to what I am saying in regards to your version of G-O-D, they would have to be saying they see no evidence that he IS the President. They aren't doing that, at all.
Well, actually it is a confluence of many things we DO KNOW that highlights that particular conundrum as crucial to the idea that our reality is conscious.Gldn is particularly fond of inciting annoyance and controversy. I am not. It just seems to me that any rational human being who fully contemplates the FACT that our reality establishes the very foundation of, rules for, and processes of existence, not to mention the indisputable creation of life and consciousness itself has to acknowledge those KNOWN attributes as God at the very least. I hold no animosity toward anyone who disagrees with me. I simply wish to explain and defend my views. I do seem to exude a sense of talking down to people and that evokes a perception of hubris and arrogance but it is not intentional.
I get what you are saying, Mystic. Truly, I believe I understand where you are coming from. I am not saying that there is no way you are right (I don't generally make knowledge claims, being an agnostic and all), by any means, which seems to be where some misunderstand me. In fact, as I said before, I would be more likely to have pantheist type views than any other. That isn't where the issue lies, for me at least. It is the knowledge claim and the supposed "ignorance" of those who don't believe the same way.
With that being said, I don't believe that you think we are all stupid knuckle draggers or anything (like some posters seem to...), but it can sometimes come off that way. A message board isn't a great place for expressing things, as they can come off wrong a lot of the time. I realize that, as it happens quite often when I post. I don't mean to sound rude, crude, angry, or anything like that, it is just my typing style I guess...
Now, I have pondered the same questions you have, we have just come to different conclusions, and that is perfectly okay with me. You came to the conclusion that God is everything. I came to the conclusion that it is simply unknowable, and live my life as such.
Have a good weekend, Mystic, I'm out until Monday!
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.
