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.
Almost every post is an opinion. So what? My point remains. Just because you don't understand something, or just because you are in awe of something, that doesn't make it God. If it is indistinguishable between the natural process of the Universe, what makes if "god-like"? If it is simply a natural process, with no thought, ability, or rationale behind it, what makes it "god-like"?? Simply because we came from it? Because you don't understand it? Because, as a poster on here seems to be, you simply WANT to be able to say you believe in God?
You seem to have a problem understanding what I mean Arach. Not saying it is your fault, maybe I am not being clear enough. If the Universe=God, then they are the same thing. No different. For a few people, maybe this is enough to call it God. For most people, it is silly semantic games. ToMAYto, ToMOTto, if you will. It is certainly not worth worshipping or coming onto a message board daily to talk about, since it has absolutely no bearing on life.
you have your opinion and that's fine. "worshiping" is a personal need and not my area. Like denying attributes because one has a personal need to be anti-religion. I don't need to worship but meditating, feeling the oneness, or group meetings with like minded people are not needless either.
I list the attributes the universe has regardless of what people call it. If the attributes match observation then they match. if not, then there is no need for me to assign it to list of properties the universe has.
some of gold attributes match and some of them don't. nothing more and nothing less.
You seem to have it backwards, as already pointed out by another poster. There is no difference in the PERSON of Barack Obama, and the PERSON of President Barack Obama, but there is certainly a large difference between the powers, duties, authority, etc etc. In your silly little game playing, you say there is no difference between the Universe and God, so what are you trying to point out exactly?
And please, tell us how the universe, "creates, controls, maintains, sustains, or eliminates reality", other than through natural processes. If you can do that, then maybe, just maybe, you would have an argument. But you can't.
Therefore, the vast majority of people will continue to call it by the name it is actually known by, while you can cling to your "God is EVERYTHING!!" nonsense, and that need you seem to have, not to be called an atheist (Which as already pointed out, you are), can be sated.
HaHaHa...more illogical ad Populum about what the "majority of people" will do.
You need a new argument. Oh, wait...other than that, and redacting and cherry-picking the expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise of the meanings that crush the Atheist Religion concept you cling to...you don't have an argument.
I didn't have it backwards. Y'all do.
The PERSON of Barack Obama was only assigned the title "President" once he possessed the attributes (won the election, and obtained the derivative power) that make it logical and reasonable to assign the title "President". If he never gained the attributes, he would have never been assigned the title.
It didn't make him any "different" than he was at that point...it is a descriptive designation indicative of attributes he possessed.
What part of that don't y'all get?
By your logic...we shouldn't ever assign a title to anything.
After all...everything already has a name, and they have the same attributes with or without it.
No "friends", no "heros", no "Champions", etc...because they already have a name to go by, and the addition of the title doesn't make a "difference" in how they are.
BTW...on what basis is the title Atheist or Theist given to people, or some vocational designation? They are all already "people" or "humans", and they all already have a name...why add "Atheist", or "Theist", or "Dr"?! Think about that...it will help you understand.
Any and all phenomena whatsoever, anywhere at any time...is necessarily by and through "ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED".
If it is ever done (anything, any time, anywhere), no matter what it is...it is done by The Universe (God).
There has been and there is creating, there has been and there is controlling, there has been and there is maintaining/sustaining and eliminating...this is unequivocally and irrefutably done by The Universe (God). It is definitively and reasonable assigned the title "GOD" based upon that.
YOU, et al, are the ones that have no argument against that. Just ad Pop fallacy and cherry-pick of known definitions...neither of which cut it.
And please, tell us how the universe, "creates, controls, maintains, sustains, or eliminates reality", other than through natural processes. If you can do that, then maybe, just maybe, you would have an argument. But you can't.
What are "natural" processes?? Why are they "natural?" How did they become "natural?" What are "unnatural" processes?
Quote:
If it is a natural process, what is "God like" about it? You CAN BOLD AND !!!!! AS MUCH AS YOU WANT, IT CHANGES NOTHING. We already have a name for what you call God, and there is no need to call it God, as you are simply renaming something we already have a name for, and attributing things to it that simply are not so.
What makes it God-like is its scope, power, ubiquity, and uncompromising comprehensiveness.We had the name God for it long before science was invented. How does your undefined "natural" usurp that provenance?
Quote:
Especially considering you think the Bible and Jesus are somehow part of it, making your "God" a thinking, forward planning God.
Anything and everything about the Bible and Jesus is part of my BELIEFS. They are NOT the obvious and verifiable attributes of God we are discussing.
you have your opinion and that's fine. "worshiping" is a personal need and not my area. Like denying attributes because one has a personal need to be anti-religion. I don't need to worship but meditating, feeling the oneness, or group meetings with like minded people are not needless either.
I list the attributes the universe has regardless of what people call it. If the attributes match observation then they match. if not, then there is no need for me to assign it to list of properties the universe has.
some of gold attributes match and some of them don't. nothing more and nothing less.
I am not denying attributes. I am simply pointing out that some people on here are giving it attributes that they can't possibly know exist (like all religions do), which is silly. You have others simply calling something God, for no good reason. It has nothing to do with religion.
If you want to subscribe to the Gldn "The dictionary says the Universe is God!" mantra, then go for it. I'm certainly not going to try and stop you. The other 99% will continue to call the universe, the universe, since it possesses no God-like attributes. Simply existing is not God-like.
First off, you really, really need to learn how to type in a coherent manner. This post is ridiculously stupid to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
HaHaHa...more illogical ad Populum about what the "majority of people" will do.
You need a new argument. Oh, wait...other than that, and redacting and cherry-picking the expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise of the meanings that crush the Atheist Religion concept you cling to...you don't have an argument.
How am I using ad Populum by simply stating a fact? Since you are SOOOOO big into definitions, let me show you, using your vaunted definitions, how dumb the above is...
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
So, where did I conclude that the proposition is true, because more people believe it? I didn't. I simply stated, that you can continue to spew your "dumbstuff" and troll the atheists you seem to hate so much (hmm... there is probably some psychology in here somewhere about you hating atheists because you hate yourself, which is why you have a NEED to believe in something, so as not to be called an atheist...), and the rest of us will continue to call it by the name we all know it by: the Universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I didn't have it backwards. Y'all do.
The PERSON of Barack Obama was only assigned the title "President" once he possessed the attributes (won the election, and obtained the derivative power) that make it logical and reasonable to assign the title "President". If he never gained the attributes, he would have never been assigned the title.
It didn't make him any "different" than he was at that point...it is a descriptive designation indicative of attributes he possessed.
What part of that don't y'all get?
No, it is still you not getting it. Obama the person may not have changed, but everything else for him did. He is now held to a new standard, he is now world famous, he is now extremely powerful, etc etc. I understand perfectly what you are saying, it simply doesn't work for me. You can "describe" the universe as God if you want, but it changes nothing. It doesn't change your life, and hell, it doesn't really DO anything other than allow you to call yourself a "theist". All you have done is change the "title" of the universe.
Do what want congrats or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
By your logic...we shouldn't ever assign a title to anything.
After all...everything already has a name, and they have the same attributes with or without it.
No "friends", no "heros", no "Champions", etc...because they already have a name to go by, and the addition of the title doesn't make a "difference" in how they are.
BTW...on what basis is the title Atheist or Theist given to people, or some vocational designation? They are all already "people" or "humans", and they all already have a name...why add "Atheist", or "Theist", or "Dr"?! Think about that...it will help you understand.
Why? Because people have different things they are known for. They do different things, and no one person is alike. You are talking about one thing: the universe. You aren't saying, as you would be in the case of the above descriptors, the universe is "A" God (Like he/she is "A" hero, or "A" champion, or "A" friend), you are saying it is "The" God, as in "The only" God. There is a difference.
Not to mention, these aren't really "titles". If you are my friend, I don't introduce you as "This is Friend Gldn!", or "This is Friend!", do I? If you are a hero, you aren't introduced as "Hero Gldn" or "The Hero known as Gldn", "or This is Hero!", or anything like that, are you? It is a descriptor, sure, but not really a "title" as such. People use descriptors for other people, it isn't that hard to understand. It helps us keep things compartmentalized and whatnot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Any and all phenomena whatsoever, anywhere at any time...is necessarily by and through "ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED".
If it is ever done (anything, any time, anywhere), no matter what it is...it is done by The Universe (God).
There has been and there is creating, there has been and there is controlling, there has been and there is maintaining/sustaining and eliminating...this is unequivocally and irrefutably done by The Universe (God). It is definitively and reasonable assigned the title "GOD" based upon that.
YOU, et al, are the ones that have no argument against that. Just ad Pop fallacy and cherry-pick of known definitions...neither of which cut it.
So your "God" is nothing more than the universe then? It is not to be worshipped, it has not power over anything, it is simply random happenstance? Wow, must be awesome to believe in such a worthless definition of God.
I am not denying attributes. I am simply pointing out that some people on here are giving it attributes that they can't possibly know exist (like all religions do), which is silly. You have others simply calling something God, for no good reason. It has nothing to do with religion.
If you want to subscribe to the Gldn "The dictionary says the Universe is God!" mantra, then go for it. I'm certainly not going to try and stop you. The other 99% will continue to call the universe, the universe, since it possesses no God-like attributes. Simply existing is not God-like.
yeah I gotcha ... we agree over all. As far as I am concerned, 99% call it the universe or gol is past what they know. They shouldn't really even be commenting.
I don't care if he calls it god or I call it the universe. The traits are the traits. When we list the traits, they are what they are.
Easterns call it enlightened oneness and westerns call it one in the holy spirit. I call it interacting fields. All the same to me.
The emotional connections to solutions are not really my area. I can't see worshiping the universe either. "loving it", well I see people "loving their lawn" so OCD is OCD, its just a matter where the obsession lands. Some land on "anti-religion" obsessions and other land on "bible thumping obsessions", both are warped world views. I see obsessions. If we want to help we need to address obsessions first and then the expression, or where it falls.
I am pretty sure we agree that OCD-ers pushing their obsessions as the only true truth is the thing that bothers us the most.
neither gld or mystic do that. I see you arguing over a word.
First off, you really, really need to learn how to type in a coherent manner. This post is ridiculously stupid to read.
How am I using ad Populum by simply stating a fact? Since you are SOOOOO big into definitions, let me show you, using your vaunted definitions, how dumb the above is...
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
peer review is based on this. And, to be truthful, if most people think it, its probably true. Not in all cases, but in most.
needing a logical fallacy to prove a point means neither side really knows what they are talking about or not defining any variables. either way, its generally meaningless.
What are "natural" processes?? Why are they "natural?" How did they become "natural?" What are "unnatural" processes? What makes it God-like is its scope, power, ubiquity, and uncompromising comprehensiveness.We had the name God for it long before science was invented. How does your undefined "natural" usurp that provenance? Anything and everything about the Bible and Jesus is part of my BELIEFS. They are NOT the obvious and verifiable attributes of God we are discussing.
Semantic games as per usual. They are "natural", because that is the word we have to describe them. If God, as you say, is simply the Universe, then "God" is nothing more than what we know as the Universe, which would make God natural as well. Sure, you can call it God if you want, but it is a worthless definition of god worthy of no worship or thought.
Please explain to me how your "God" is different than simply, the Universe. Where does Jesus come in? Did your version of "God" send him down to us? If so, that would imply your "God" is more than the Universe, and is, instead, a deity like other religions. I am a bit confused as to how you could believe "The universe is God", but also believe in a man-made book about a certain deity called God. They are not the same, at all.
yeah I gotcha ... we agree over all. As far as I am concerned, 99% call it the universe or gol is past what they know. They shouldn't really even be commenting.
I don't care if he calls it god or I call it the universe. The traits are the traits. When we list the traits, they are what they are.
Easterns call it enlightened oneness and westerns call it one in the holy spirit. I call it interacting fields. All the same to me.
The emotional connections to solutions are not really my area. I can't see worshiping the universe either. "loving it", well I see people "loving their lawn" so OCD is OCD, its just a matter where the obsession lands. Some land on "anti-religion" obsessions and other land on "bible thumping obsessions", both are warped world views. I see obsessions. If we want to help we need to address obsessions first and then the expression, or where it falls.
I am pretty sure we agree that OCD-ers pushing their obsessions as the only true truth is the thing that bothers us the most.
neither gld or mystic do that. I see you arguing over a word.
I don't "care" if they call the Universe God either, Arach. I comment when they come onto threads, as they are both known to do, and derail the thread with their Universe is God stuff. They then dodge questions, or play word games, which with Gldn, I think is more trolling than anything. The fact is, if their "God" is the Universe, then why are they even commenting on threads CLEARLY not talking about that version of God? If we are talking about the Christian version of God, their God is the Universe nonsense doesn't belong in the thread, yet they constantly come into thread after thread and derail it, complete with a whole bunch of quotation marks, capitalized words, and crappy formatting.
If someone is pushing their obsessions as truth, with no proof, then yes, it does bother me. Religious or not. Personally, I am an atheist/agnostic, and don't claim to know the truth.
peer review is based on this. And, to be truthful, if most people think it, its probably true. Not in all cases, but in most.
needing a logical fallacy to prove a point means neither side really knows what they are talking about or not defining any variables. either way, its generally meaningless.
The point was, I wasn't using Ad-Populum. That is used to say something is true because a lot of people believe it. That wasn't what I was saying.
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.
