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.
nature is what nature is. That's my only claim. I don't care about a definition of god that is not real.
why does "god" have to be anymore than our region of space described as alive? You are what you are, we don't have to make up any definition past "human", even though you do not represent all of humanity. Not even you are that bad.
I can't define it anymore because we have no more data. MiT is looking into "nature" as a giant processor. They will find it because that is exactly what it is. If you have intent, the universe has intent. Yes, on a much smaller scale than a stone aged spear chucker, but its not none.
Add the prospect of life elsewhare and we have a bigger volume.
Add what we know about particle physics and the volume gets bigger still.
The volume of the the earth to the universe is small. we can say we don't know how far "alive extends".
The volume of the earth to the volume of people and biosphere is the minimum volume we can talk about with a fair degree of certainty. It is more a valid to claim that we are in a volume of space that is best described as live.
that description includes atheist, theist, budhist, and all the tribels. some people don't need. some people do. thats that.
But why can't you say say to theist "it might be alive, its just not what you say it is.". 'alive" does have some scientific weight behind it. Some serious weight. why not just say it?
or prove me wrong with observation and not personal needs.
The products of my defecations are of "supreme value" when my bowels are cramping, but I don't assign them the God label as would you, even though they are a subset of all/everything.
You musta missed this: http://www.city-data.com/forum/46659265-post241.html
I have always noted that those that put up dumbstuff, childish lists of things like snot, poop, toilets, dildoes, etc...give a full indication of the level of mentality they work with.
Thanx for your fine example of that! I have always been able to count on you!
And, please, don't ever stop...the incredibly ignorant and childish dumbstuff by you and your ilk are some of my favorite stuff on the board!
no, your are wrong. The topic is the possibility of accepting god. I am telling you let science define "god", you just keep repeating some rejection of a stone aged concept of divine intervention that just is not real anymore.
Not real to you. But as Gldn is fond of pointing out over and over, the majority of our species does appear to believe in a god that matches what I defined. A non-human intentional agent. You are willfully disingenuous in rejecting a real discussion, using the real topic of the thread, using my real points. You want to have a discussion about your own topics, and you want to force people to stop saying what they are saying, and start saying what you require of them. Perhaps you will find a person to conform to that sometime. I am not that person. Your attention span is the issue, not the length of my posts.
"G-O-D" is, in FACT, defined (among other meanings) by experts to be "Something of Supreme Value". Those that get all twisted up and suffer Godophobia flare-ups from that, notwithstanding.
It is debatable that any individual thing or group of things could be considered to be "Of Supreme Value"...but "ALL/EVERYTHING" certainly is.
"ALL/EVERYTHING" objectively exists and comports with the known expert definition of "G-O-D".
It would be logical and reasonable to assign the title "G-O-D" to "ALL THAT EXISTS" if one perceives it as such.
I perceive it as such...and assign that title to it.
THUS: GOD. That unequivocally and irrefutably exists. An entity that comports definitivelyANDobjectively exists, is the "MORE". Some definitive manifestations of "G-O-D" cannot be objectively proven to exist.
I present one that certainly does. SO...Done Deal!
This is NOT a "semantic trick"...it is the excising of known, expert definitions of "G-O-D" that is the disingenuous semantic trick. Projection by Godophobic Fundie Atheist Religion adherents, notwithstanding.
"Blah blah blah. Everything is God, everything exists, therefore God exists! Hah!!!"
This wasn't a good argument when you started it, and it isn't a good argument now. Unless your "god" has some attributes outside of simply being what everyone else calls the universe, it is pointless to assign the God label to it. If I say "Jimi Hendrix is a God!!!", that doesn't make him an actual God, just as saying, "The Universe is God!" doesn't make the universe God.
So answer me this... Is your version of "god" any different from what everyone else calls the known universe? Or do you just continue to use the title God to describe the known universe for some other stupid reason?
"Blah blah blah. Everything is God, everything exists, therefore God exists! Hah!!!"
This wasn't a good argument when you started it, and it isn't a good argument now. Unless your "god" has some attributes outside of simply being what everyone else calls the universe, it is pointless to assign the God label to it. If I say "Jimi Hendrix is a God!!!", that doesn't make him an actual God, just as saying, "The Universe is God!" doesn't make the universe God.
So answer me this... Is your version of "god" any different from what everyone else calls the known universe? Or do you just continue to use the title God to describe the known universe for some other stupid reason?
It is the attributes that define it. What it is responsible for establishes its ubiquity, power, and God status.
"Blah blah blah. Everything is God, everything exists, therefore God exists! Hah!!!"
This wasn't a good argument when you started it, and it isn't a good argument now. Unless your "god" has some attributes outside of simply being what everyone else calls the universe, it is pointless to assign the God label to it. If I say "Jimi Hendrix is a God!!!", that doesn't make him an actual God, just as saying, "The Universe is God!" doesn't make the universe God.
So answer me this... Is your version of "god" any different from what everyone else calls the known universe? Or do you just continue to use the title God to describe the known universe for some other stupid reason?
we can bla bla bla it all we want.
we can bla bla bla f=ma.
the wheel, thousands of years old, so what?
bla bla bla .... make it square now?
bla bla bla,
while minimizing a claim,
doesn't make it less truthful.
The universe is 14 billion years old, if witten can say it evolves, its good enough for me, although i do wish he had some personality. but we only have 3lbs of brains to mix emotion and logic.
so yeah, bla bla bla, we are alive, in a probable living volume of space ... bla bla bla. its more reasonable to claim that then bla bla bla.
so we 1/2 agree. just I choose not to bla bla bla facts and bla bla bla personal opinions. You do the reverse.
You musta missed this: http://www.city-data.com/forum/46659265-post241.html
I have always noted that those that put up dumbstuff, childish lists of things like snot, poop, toilets, dildoes, etc...give a full indication of the level of mentality they work with.
Thanx for your fine example of that! I have always been able to count on you!
And, please, don't ever stop...the incredibly ignorant and childish dumbstuff by you and your ilk are some of my favorite stuff on the board!
Yeah, I did miss that because I don't normally read your posts, but since you made the equivalency, I'm simply providing an example of what some would never consider a God but that your definition does indeed assign that label to, demonstrating the lunacy of your claim.
1. Its something of supreme value, at times.
2. Its a subset of all/everything.
These are your requirements, not mine. When someone shows that this describes something you consider "dumbstuff", blame yourself.
"Blah blah blah. Everything is God, everything exists, therefore God exists! Hah!!!"
This wasn't a good argument when you started it, and it isn't a good argument now. Unless your "god" has some attributes outside of simply being what everyone else calls the universe, it is pointless to assign the God label to it. If I say "Jimi Hendrix is a God!!!", that doesn't make him an actual God, just as saying, "The Universe is God!" doesn't make the universe God.
So answer me this... Is your version of "god" any different from what everyone else calls the known universe? Or do you just continue to use the title God to describe the known universe for some other stupid reason?
What is the difference between "Barack Obama" and "President Barack Obama"?
What is the title "President" given to him based upon?
Answer that...and you will understand the answer to your question. And, how even asking such an obvious thing is demonstrative of actual or wilful ignorance.
Yeah, I did miss that because I don't normally read your posts, but since you made the equivalency, I'm simply providing an example of what some would never consider a God but that your definition does indeed assign that label to, demonstrating the lunacy of your claim.
1. Its something of supreme value, at times.
2. Its a subset of all/everything.
These are your requirements, not mine. When someone shows that this describes something you consider "dumbstuff", blame yourself.
"G-O-D" is certainly defined as "Religious Deities". It would now be upon anyone perceiving those entities as "God" to substantiate their objective existence.
"G-O-D" is ALSO defined as "Something Of Supreme Value". It is debatable what is or isn't "Of Supreme Value", but "ALL/EVERYTHING" would certainly objectively be.
It can be fully, objectively substantiated that "ALL/EVERYTHING" objectively exists. THUS: God exists.
That is "ALL/EVERYTHING"...In Totality.
The Atheist Religion adherents on this board keep listing individual things that comprise that Totality (and for some reason it is often feces...they seem to have a strange obsession with it. Telling.) and cannot seem to "get" that those individual things could not be objectively determined to be "Of Supreme Value"...while "ALL" would irrefutably and unequivocally be.
An analogy...to help you "get it" (using the substance y'all are so into): Your whole body (including the feces in it) would/could be defined as "You/Amaznjohn". But just that feces, in a pile, would/could not be considered "You/Amaznjohn".
Got it, now? If not...I will be glad to explain further.
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.
