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.
How much more could someone do to "prove" something could be reasonably and logically given some title, than to show that it comports with an applicable, relevant, expert provided meaning of the word or term?
It is the only neutral arbiter we really have to go by.
That another does not hold the same perception is inconsequential. If a perception is held, that comports definitively and objectively exists...then it is a "done deal". And the validity cannot logically be discounted.
Also...to trot out "Bigfoot", "leprechauns", and "aliens" (so close to Christmas and no "Santa". Tsk, Tsk...ur slippin'!) is not a valid comparison.
Now...if "Bigfoot/leprechauns/aliens and other crazy things" were self-substantiating to objectively exist like "ALL/EVERYTHING" does...then it would compare.
I present an entity that I perceive as God, comports definitively as "G-O-D", and objectively exists.
I SUBMIT: That's a wrap!
Others can say they don't hold the same perception...but they cannot logically and reasonably, without a qualification to limit to Religious Deities, claim that "There is no evidence for the existence of God".
Side Note: southernbored is rude and crude, just like me. I don't mind his ad Hom stuff a bit. MOF...I like that kind of stuff.
Also...I don’t call people "stupid"..."ignorant" is the term I use. Much different.
We can however, as we do, claim that there is no reason to call "ALL/EVERYTHING" God, without a reason to. Maybe you are okay with just calling the universe God, and that is perfectly fine. But to use that as a reason that all of us are "ignorant", or have "Godophobia", or lack critical thinking skills, or whatever else, is just silly.
You seem not to understand that people who don't believe as you do not see evidence for the "Universe is God" thing you have going on. There is no reason to call it God, therefore we don't. Some of us do not have a glaringly obvious need to believe in something as you do. We also don't see a need to call something God, for simply existing.
Just because you "perceive" God as being nothing more than the universe, doesn't make it true. Just as people "perceiving" Bigfoot as being real, doesn't make it real. You seem to think that your perception is the only one that matters, and that simply isn't true.
Side Note: Yes, I can be rude and crude. Especially when someone constantly derails threads with silly nonsense, and constantly repeats everything because they have nothing more to bring to the table.
Side Note 2: I use Bigfoot, leprechauns, and aliens as comparisons, because they are just as silly as calling "ALL/EVERYTHING", God. you can also use your vaunted definitions to "prove" they are real.
We can however, as we do, claim that there is no reason to call "ALL/EVERYTHING" God, without a reason to. Maybe you are okay with just calling the universe God, and that is perfectly fine. But to use that as a reason that all of us are "ignorant", or have "Godophobia", or lack critical thinking skills, or whatever else, is just silly.
You seem not to understand that people who don't believe as you do not see evidence for the "Universe is God" thing you have going on. There is no reason to call it God, therefore we don't. Some of us do not have a glaringly obvious need to believe in something as you do. We also don't see a need to call something God, for simply existing.
Just because you "perceive" God as being nothing more than the universe, doesn't make it true. Just as people "perceiving" Bigfoot as being real, doesn't make it real. You seem to think that your perception is the only one that matters, and that simply isn't true.
Side Note: Yes, I can be rude and crude. Especially when someone constantly derails threads with silly nonsense, and constantly repeats everything because they have nothing more to bring to the table.
Side Note 2: I use Bigfoot, leprechauns, and aliens as comparisons, because they are just as silly as calling "ALL/EVERYTHING", God. you can also use your vaunted definitions to "prove" they are real.
I realize many do not perceive it as "GOD". And I am cool with that.
What is not cool...is claiming "There is no evidence for God" based on your lack of perception.
What YOU are obviously ignorant about...is that if an entity is presented that comports definitively as "G-O-D", and objectively exists unequivocally and irrefutably...then it is ignorant, illogical, and unreasonable to claim that your lack of perception (which is just obfuscation, because you know "ALL" objectively exists, and you know that it passes definitive muster) somehow usurps its status and makes it now logical to still claim "No Evidence For God", absent a Religious Deity qualifier.
It is Atheism that is rendered null and void (as a God Entity has been objectively proven)...unless you redact and cherry-pick the definition, and excise the meanings that crush the Atheist Religion concept of "Lack Belief in Gods Based Upon No Evidence".
For Example: If I introduce someone to you as "My Friend"...you cannot then claim since you do not consider that person your friend, that somehow removes their status as "A Friend".
Even if you claimed that, in your opinion, there is no such thing as "friends"...that does not somehow nullify their friend status and/or eliminate the existence of "friends".
If there is such a thing definitively as a "Friend", and anyone perceives an objectively existing entity as a "friend"....then that entity is a "friend", and there is objective evidence for the existence of "Friends".
Your differing perception does not at all change that.
You cannot eliminate something someone does have, with something you don't have.
And it must be "Godophobia" or some such issue...because nobody intelligent enough to use this board could not understand that.
See, the problem is, you can perceive all sort of things. It doesn't make them true. The issue I have with your version of God is very simple. You have no evidence to suggest that the Universe, or ALL/EVERYTHING is God, other than "The dictionary gives this definition, therefore my perception is true and atheists are stupid!". Sure, you can perceive it as God if you so choose, but that only makes it true TO YOU, not anyone else. Just keep in mind, there are also people who perceive Bigfoot to be real, along with other crazy things like aliens and leprechauns, which by your logic, if they find a definition they liked, could "prove" they were. That is just dumb.
So, show us something other than a dictionary definition that shows ALL/EVERYTHING to BE God, and we can have a conversation. Fact is, you have nothing else, which is why you repeat yourself in every single post, and call others dumb for not believing your nonsense.
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.
I realize many do not perceive it as "GOD". And I am cool with that.
What is not cool...is claiming "There is no evidence for God" based on your lack of perception.
What YOU are obviously ignorant about...is that if an entity is presented that comports definitively as "G-O-D", and objectively exists unequivocally and irrefutably...then it is ignorant, illogical, and unreasonable to claim that your lack of perception (which is just obfuscation, because you know "ALL" objectively exists, and you know that it passes definitive muster) somehow usurps its status and makes it now logical to still claim "No Evidence For God", absent a Religious Deity qualifier.
It is Atheism that is rendered null and void (as a God Entity has been objectively proven)...unless you redact and cherry-pick the definition, and excise the meanings that crush the Atheist Religion concept of "Lack Belief in Gods Based Upon No Evidence".
For Example: If I introduce someone to you as "My Friend"...you cannot then claim since you do not consider that person your friend, that somehow removes their status as "A Friend".
Even if you claimed that, in your opinion, there is no such thing as "friends"...that does not somehow nullify their friend status and/or eliminate the existence of "friends".
If there is such a thing definitively as a "Friend", and anyone perceives an objectively existing entity as a "friend"....then that entity is a "friend", and there is objective evidence for the existence of "Friends".
Your differing perception does not at all change that.
You cannot eliminate something someone does have, with something you don't have.
And it must be "Godophobia" or some such issue...because nobody intelligent enough to use this board could not understand that.
Same idiotic nonsense.
We "perceive" ALL, of course. We do not perceive "ALL" to BE God though, and that is the difference. You say perception doesn't matter, but that is all you are using to justify your stance. YOUR perception.
As for you friends analogy, I can certainly say they aren't MY friend, which is essentially what we are doing with your version of God. We don't believe all is God, therefore saying we believe in "ALL/EVERYTHING" does nothing other than say we believe in that. It doesn't say we believe it to be God, as you do. Certainly doesn't make it God either, regardless of how many times you say so.
This is actually much more accurate! How can you say Bigfoot doesn't exist if someone "perceives" Bigfoot as a gorilla?
Gorilla is stupid. its more of a bear.
illusion also fits. They saw something but they described it wrong. It most certainly could have been a bear. So calling "big Foot" a bear is more accurate.
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.
Did it do so knowingly? Otherwise you are calling it God for simply existing. Doesn't matter if it created us or not.
We "perceive" ALL, of course. We do not perceive "ALL" to BE God though, and that is the difference. You say perception doesn't matter, but that is all you are using to justify your stance. YOUR perception.
As for you friends analogy, I can certainly say they aren't MY friend, which is essentially what we are doing with your version of God. We don't believe all is God, therefore saying we believe in "ALL/EVERYTHING" does nothing other than say we believe in that. It doesn't say we believe it to be God, as you do. Certainly doesn't make it God either, regardless of how many times you say so.
Again, you don't "get it".
Your LACK of perception does not matter...to one that does have a perception.
You are trying to contest something (a God Entity Perception that definitively comports and objectively exists), with nothing (your claimed lack of a God Entity Perception).
You ignorantly compare "ALL/EVERYTHING", that is so self-substantiating that no one contests its existence...with Bigfoot, Leprechauns, and aliens, that are not objectively substantiated to exist.
THAT is the key...Comport Definitively AAAAAAAND Fully Substantiated Objective Existence. THAT is a wrap...and nothing anyone else "lacks" will change that.
You actually are trying to argue that your God Perception deficiency has some kind of efficacy to do something!
Kinda like the Fundie Religious saying that since they possess no evidence for Evolution...that somehow invalidates it! Hey...I guess Fundies are Fundies!
Your comparisons fail the last part of the key. Which is why you want to redact and cherry-pick the definition of "G-O-D" to just Religious Deities...because you know they cannot be fully substantiated to objectively exist...so, then, you are able to maintain your claim of "No Evidence For God".
But it doesn't work like that...the relevant meanings are the relevant meanings...and that includes more than just Religious Deities. Your displeasure with that, notwithstanding.
Religious Deities may not exist...but "G-O-D" sure does, unequivocally and irrefutably, fully substantiated.
Did it do so knowingly? Otherwise you are calling it God for simply existing. Doesn't matter if it created us or not.
"Knowingly" is inconsequential.
The attributes are what they are, regardless.
I perceive "ALL" as "God" based upon the attributes it has...whereby it comports definitively on account of those attributes.
It is as "Godly" as anything could ever be. THAT is my perception of it as God. And no "lack of perception" can controvert that.
I would never purport a fraction of Mystics understanding. But I understand enough to know God Exists. And it needs to be nothing more than what it is and has been known to be, to qualify as "God".
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 southernbored
Did it do so knowingly? Otherwise you are calling it God for simply existing. Doesn't matter if it created us or not.
How can you say that? 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.
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.
