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.
Yes, old mate. You put your finger on it - it's absurd. Think about why it is and you will get it.
Or if not - it's absurd until you add something more to make it different, so 'World' isn't the word you need. What More does one add? That is the difference between nature and "God" and until you show that such a Something More exists, "God" is not the word you can rationally use.
P.s back to topic It is a method of argument (and maybe rhetoric, in a broad sense) to take other other argument and put your own words in to reverse the argument.
This is sometimes effective in showing up special pleading. It was useful here to illuminate perhaps the trick of trying to smuggle in a god's existence either by saying that nature as it is is godlike enough to merit the name without something more or by trying to smuggle in the name without having to produce any decent evidence (the attempt to make invalid evidence serve as "Evidence" having failed) of the something more you both know (I am sure) there has to be to merit the term "God".
and a P.p .s Just to remove any Eusebian idea that you are somehow wining by spinning the argument out, let me point out to the browsers, that an argument that relies on fiddling around with semantics rather than producing some good evidence, is showing that it has none.
You have seen "The Evidence" of why Nature/Universe/All That Exists is meritoriously titled "God":
>>>Quote by GldnRule:
And even if you wanna go by "what people generally have in mind" as respects the attributes of a God Entity...The Universe covers that too...and you know that.
ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe) has all those attributes that "people generally have in mind" when considering God.
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in Reality.---ALL POWERFUL
I could go on. But as Arach says, it is "what is in front of us", "what we know", and "how it is".
These are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity as per "what people generally have in mind" when they consider "God".
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment...and certainly merits the title "GOD".
If THE UNIVERSE doesn't cut it as GOD, nothing would...and we may as well not even have such a word/term/title.<<<
Your response to that:
>>>We might as well not.<<<
Of course, you never addressed the evidentiary basis I put forth.
The evidence is there...fully objective, unequivocal, and irrefutable. I am addressing you here...with MY perception of "God". The Pantheist perception...not other perceptions or manifestations. Address THAT perception...and the evidence.
It is directly relative to the rhetoric of the LOBBUNE Doctrine of Atheism, that necessarily must discount any evidence.
No. The typical scenario is not a modification of what you wrote...it is members responding to not only what you said
Yes, I agree, that is what I said. That IS the typical scenario for most users. Just not you and at least 2 other users I can think of. The majority of users ARE able to reply to what I said. Usually quite consistently. Changing what I said into something I did not say is not "expanding" on it though. It is distorting it. And you do it with gusto and a fetid need to reply to anything BUT what I actually say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Then, you note only the expansion and claim they didn't respond directly...to avoid having to rehabilitate your crushed argument that is typically another trot out of the illogical LOBBUNE (Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence) Doctrine of the Atheist Religion.
Except you have not once ever rebutted a single argument I have made, let alone "crushed" it, but there is another rhetorical tool on display here that is worth noting since exposure of canard moves is of some utility. This tool you have of peppering "bait and switch" comments into your post that deflect from the core discussion. In this case your usual trope of "atheism is a religion" nonsense. Despite being roundly and wholly rebutted on it any number of times before, it is still your go to "bait and switch" dodge when you realize you are losing the main conversation you are in. So you throw it out in the hope it will deflect conversation from one of your failures, on to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Usually saying, "There is no evidence on offer...ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, ZIP"...in the face of all the evidence.
All what evidence though? You have not presented any. As I schooled you in the previous pages of this thread, simply CALLING something evidence does not make it evidence. One has to qualify it as being evidence by showing how and why it should be considered so. As with your anecdotal "experiences of god" nonsense, you consistently fail to do this every, single, time.
And THAT is what I mean when I say there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning being offered to support the claims a non-human intelligent and intentional agency exists. I have NEVER meant that no one is presenting things they CALL evidence. I DO mean that they are not presenting anything they have successfully qualified as being worthy of the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Furthermore...You can't use "No Evidence" AS evidence.
Then take that up with someone who makes that move. Since I do not make that move, it has nothing to do with me and you are basically just trying to fill out your post with content at this point, regardless of whether the content is relevant or not. My SOLE position is that I do not subscribe to, or accept, claims that are entirely devoid of all substantiation. There is nothing wrong with that move at all. Certainly nothing that YOU have shown anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Debate the veracity of the evidence...
Sure thing. Just as soon as you get around to actually presenting any. As you have not done so yet, there is nothing to debate. And in fact your whole linguistic position on "god" leaves nothing TO be debated. There is not only no evidence there, there is no CONTENT there. There is no claim in your claim. You genuinely have not offered anything I have read (link me to anything you feel I may have missed) that has any content to it OTHER than merely calling "all of everything" with the word "god". That is a linguistic rhetorical move, with no actual content to debate, accept or rebut. There is nothing there.
Yes, I agree, that is what I said. That IS the typical scenario for most users. Just not you and at least 2 other users I can think of. The majority of users ARE able to reply to what I said. Usually quite consistently. Changing what I said into something I did not say is not "expanding" on it though. It is distorting it. And you do it with gusto and a fetid need to reply to anything BUT what I actually say.
Except you have not once ever rebutted a single argument I have made, let alone "crushed" it, but there is another rhetorical tool on display here that is worth noting since exposure of canard moves is of some utility. This tool you have of peppering "bait and switch" comments into your post that deflect from the core discussion. In this case your usual trope of "atheism is a religion" nonsense. Despite being roundly and wholly rebutted on it any number of times before, it is still your go to "bait and switch" dodge when you realize you are losing the main conversation you are in. So you throw it out in the hope it will deflect conversation from one of your failures, on to another.
All what evidence though? You have not presented any. As I schooled you in the previous pages of this thread, simply CALLING something evidence does not make it evidence. One has to qualify it as being evidence by showing how and why it should be considered so. As with your anecdotal "experiences of god" nonsense, you consistently fail to do this every, single, time.
And THAT is what I mean when I say there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning being offered to support the claims a non-human intelligent and intentional agency exists. I have NEVER meant that no one is presenting things they CALL evidence. I DO mean that they are not presenting anything they have successfully qualified as being worthy of the term.
Then take that up with someone who makes that move. Since I do not make that move, it has nothing to do with me and you are basically just trying to fill out your post with content at this point, regardless of whether the content is relevant or not. My SOLE position is that I do not subscribe to, or accept, claims that are entirely devoid of all substantiation. There is nothing wrong with that move at all. Certainly nothing that YOU have shown anyway.
Sure thing. Just as soon as you get around to actually presenting any. As you have not done so yet, there is nothing to debate. And in fact your whole linguistic position on "god" leaves nothing TO be debated. There is not only no evidence there, there is no CONTENT there. There is no claim in your claim. You genuinely have not offered anything I have read (link me to anything you feel I may have missed) that has any content to it OTHER than merely calling "all of everything" with the word "god". That is a linguistic rhetorical move, with no actual content to debate, accept or rebut. There is nothing there.
Could you talk louder?!
You are buried so deep under the pile of evidence stacked upon you...it is difficult to hear you.
I think you said "There is no evidence" again...from underneath the evidence pile.
When you get hip to the giant pile of evidence you are under...you will come to greater knowledge and understanding.
I realize YOU have "No Evidence"...MOF you fully admit you don't...and illogically base your position on it.
Just because you call all the evidence Theists have "Not Evidence"...does not change that it is.
This claim of yours is so similar to the YEC crew saying there is "No Evidence" for Evolution. But, then...Fundies will be Fundies.
You are now essentially just posting fatuous and facetious filler.
Suffice to say that simply claiming there to be piles of evidence, without showing any of it, does not evidence make. As for me having no evidence.... for which claim? I evidence all the claims I make, when asked to. Which claim in particular do you think I should be evidencing?
You are now essentially just posting fatuous and facetious filler.
Suffice to say that simply claiming there to be piles of evidence, without showing any of it, does not evidence make. As for me having no evidence.... for which claim? I evidence all the claims I make, when asked to. Which claim in particular do you think I should be evidencing?
You are well aware of the evidence....you just claim it isn't, with no proof it is not.
Your claim the most epic and prolific writings known to humankind and the testimony of BILLIONS are completely lacking of any merit...is totally bogus. And since you like going by "what most people think" so much...you lose at around 4 to 1 on your assessment, from the standpoint of "what most people think" about the merit of that evidence.
My Pantheist perception of "God" is even objectively substantiated...and you still claim there is "No Evidence".
I explained before about normal God Perceptive abilities, that are possessed by the vast majority...and the few that are deficient and lack that ability.
I am well aware of the things you CALL evidence, but as with your anecdotes of "experiences of god" I have explained at length why it does not qualify. You ignoring the reasons why I reject claims of evidence is NOT the same as me ignoring the evidence.
And you do not have the "testimony of billions" either. You are just making that up. Subscription to a religion is not the same thing as a testimony, and quite a lot of that testimony is contradictory. For every testimony to the divinity of Jesus for example, you have counter testimony from Muslims saying the opposite.
So whatever the worth of the testimony is at the end of the day, you would need to start by establishing how much of it you actually have, because your argumentum ad populum fallacy is not on the statistically firm ground you pretend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
My Pantheist perception of "God" is even objectively substantiated...and you still claim there is "No Evidence".
Once again, not what I said no. I said your perception is a linguistic move and there is nothing there TO evidence. No that there is no evidence for it. Do try to keep up.
I am well aware of the things you CALL evidence, but as with your anecdotes of "experiences of god" I have explained at length why it does not qualify. You ignoring the reasons why I reject claims of evidence is NOT the same as me ignoring the evidence.
And you do not have the "testimony of billions" either. You are just making that up. Subscription to a religion is not the same thing as a testimony, and quite a lot of that testimony is contradictory. For every testimony to the divinity of Jesus for example, you have counter testimony from Muslims saying the opposite.
So whatever the worth of the testimony is at the end of the day, you would need to start by establishing how much of it you actually have, because your argumentum ad populum fallacy is not on the statistically firm ground you pretend.
Once again, not what I said no. I said your perception is a linguistic move and there is nothing there TO evidence. No that there is no evidence for it. Do try to keep up.
Of course there is the "testimony of BILLIONS".
If one personally adheres to a theology that provides for some God Entity, and billions do...that is certainly a personal testimony that they believe and perceive a God exists.
To say it is not is totally unreasonable and illogical.
Also...Pantheists make no more "linguistic move" assigning the title and referring to The Universe as "God"...that those that refer to George Washington as "President".
Yes...they both already have a name...but they possess attributes that merit the title. They are not being "renamed" or "relabled" to be "God" and "President", as you always falsely claim....the titles are added based upon merit that comports with the known meaning of the title.
You know repeating an unsubstantiated claim but placing "of course" before it does not strengthen the claim, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Also...Pantheists make no more "linguistic move"
Perhaps THEY do, but YOU do not. I have asked you numerous times to adumbrate the differences and you have failed to do so. Taking "all of everything" and simply calling it "god" is a linguistic move and you have not laid out any other substantive distinctions you are making. So as I said the problem is not your lack of evidence, it is your lack of something TO evidence.
The problem is noizze that; he has some valid points. Now rhetoric says that we don't need evidence so I have absolutely no power of rhetoric. You have more power because you don't have to stick with observation and can use personal needs at will.
Where I disagree with him, and most certifiably your rants ... their is no reason for us to have to hold to the definition of a god as defined by a religious people 1000's of years ago. We might as well hold to their definition of what powers the sun too then.
So your rhetoric says " ... hold to some bullship definition ...", Like the sun is "combustion", then you deny anything that supports that bullship definition. Right powerful rhetoric you got there. Again, I point your resents post of awesomeness in rhetorical writing as evidence of the power of rhetoric. Average people that don;t know much more than accounting or lawyering might get baffled by the rhetorical bullships.
Now, evidence does say that anything we engage in the universe must be engaging in. We can talk about volume of space involved, but even a basic investigation points to a volume larger then you could claim. But that isn't rhetoric is it? its a fact.
In fact, with your biology background, it becomes quite clear that all you have is the second definition of rhetoric as support. That being a whole lot of very pretty writing that says basically nothing but that you have to hold to carefully chosen (by you and your personal needs) literal definition of words to limit a discussion of "how the universe works" to a discussion on "how you want the universe works."
all in all ... awesome rhetoric that any pastor would be proud of.
You have seen "The Evidence" of why Nature/Universe/All That Exists is meritoriously titled "God":
>>>Quote by GldnRule:
And even if you wanna go by "what people generally have in mind" as respects the attributes of a God Entity...The Universe covers that too...and you know that.
ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe) has all those attributes that "people generally have in mind" when considering God.
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in Reality.---ALL POWERFUL
I could go on. But as Arach says, it is "what is in front of us", "what we know", and "how it is".
These are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity as per "what people generally have in mind" when they consider "God".
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment...and certainly merits the title "GOD".
If THE UNIVERSE doesn't cut it as GOD, nothing would...and we may as well not even have such a word/term/title.<<<
Your response to that:
>>>We might as well not.<<<
Of course, you never addressed the evidentiary basis I put forth.
The evidence is there...fully objective, unequivocal, and irrefutable. I am addressing you here...with MY perception of "God". The Pantheist perception...not other perceptions or manifestations. Address THAT perception...and the evidence.
It is directly relative to the rhetoric of the LOBBUNE Doctrine of Atheism, that necessarily must discount any evidence.
I think such a discussion would be off topic, because even though you see it as related to rhetoric, that is just well -poisoning.
Discussion of the evidence is a useful discussion but off topic; discussion of the methods of arguing is on topic.
I'm disinclined to engage with you on either as all I have seen of your evidence is what you project onto us - Zero, Zilch, Nada.
And on the other side all you ever do is semantic fiddling. As I have said before there is a stage where discussion is simply mud wrestling a hog. It's better just to point to the folk with a stick:
"Hog; mud."
Which I would rather do and will continue to do.
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.
