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.
Do you seriously want me to asses some fantasies that you can come up with?
For me, to consider all this seriously you need to show that "it" is there in a first place.
If you can not show that "it" is there before you start giving "it" some traits, then what you are doing is engaging in mental masturbation, which is something I'm not interested to participate in.
What are you suggesting is NOT there because we are considering what is undeniably there - our 5% "measurable" Reality.
Then you are discrediting the very process that produced your preferred words from the original word - God - or are you unaware that the science terms were born of repugnance for the term God during the period of the religious autocracy persecuting the originators of science.
he does have a point about the word god.
You, gld, and I, along with others but they kind of leave us out to dry a bit are trying to define what the system is using the properties that science tells us the system has.
we then match those properties to the claims people make.
if a person is describing a tree in detail, and giving that tree all the accepted properties of a tree, and the only thing they are doing is calling it a "god", we can agree on its properties and disagree on what to call it.
but, when people are denying the existence of the object, here the tree, because of the wrong word,(they deny the tree is there because they don't like the word god) then thats when i take issue. there is not nothing there, its something, thats just a fact.
it so obvious that a nine year old can see it. In fact, most people see "something". Gld is actually right, it renders the deny everything sect of atheism as so much less valid people that follow that line of thinking can be dangerous.
Where did consciousness come from in your argument all of a sudden?
It was just DM/DE with 95% of knowledge a post ago. Now it is DM/DE, and Consciousness, and Life...
Are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks? Or you need more real estate to hide "95% of available knowledge"?
Our consciousness is NOT directly measurable (as DM/DE). Since DM/DE comprise the unmeasurable 95+% of our total Reality, anything in our Reality that is currently unmeasurable could be part of what is unknown.
What are you suggesting is NOT there because we are considering what is undeniably there - our 5% "measurable" Reality.
lmao ... i know .. its kind of funny.
all i said is that some theist are misunderstanding what they are connected to. and now he says I am fantasizing that we are in a larger more complex system.
after he told it that is so obvious that a nine year old can see it.
he is getting twisted up I think. It may be an allergic reaction to the word god.
Losing confidence that he will correctly "suss" me, Arq? I thought you were NOT going to help him reach your conclusion. Just couldn't resist poisoning the well, eh? You have consistently NOT understood Arach's attempt to point out that every component of a living system would NOT be characterized as alive (as in a cell) which is why you miss the relevance of the "Body" analogy. Not everything that comprises your body is intelligent but that doesn't mean that you aren't (though sometimes I wonder).
I couldn't resist providing a short cut. But he's well on the way to sussing you. I understand Arach's argument quite well - which you apparently don't, mainly because you refuse to accept 'emergence' (the combination producing what is not in the individual components).
all i said is that some theist are misunderstanding what they are connected to. and now he says I am fantasizing that we are in a larger more complex system.
after he told it that is so obvious that a nine year old can see it.
he is getting twisted up I think. It may be an allergic reaction to the word god.
I couldn't resist providing a short cut. But he's well on the way to sussing you. I understand Arach's argument quite well - which you apparently don't, mainly because you refuse to accept 'emergence' (the combination producing what is not in the individual components).
you understood so well that you tried to tell me we shouldn't do that because although valid it gives theist something to use and makes atheism harder to sell.
you emergence comment is not relevant to the whole discussion. yes, mystic deny's emergance, but the point is that we are in a larger more complex system. that if we classify humans as alive what is the most logical classification of that larger system?
non-life? not alive? natural? remember that one? when you held firm on natural? lmao ... that was funny.
so when i listen to god claims that address how the universe works you told me i should answering to "deny everything first so theist can't use it and make atheism harder to sell"
how is that even reasonable? Following that line of logic makes you dangerous.
It's a healthy one; an allergy to using the word 'God' (with all its' associated baggage) for matters where we have less misleading terms. The same goes for 'Life' applied to a universe of mostly non - living matter.
It's a healthy one; an allergy to using the word 'God' (with all its' associated baggage) for matters where we have less misleading terms. The same goes for 'Life' applied to a universe of mostly non - living matter.
you are made up of non living matter.
are you alive?
I strictly limit my claim to the biosphere and you strictly limit your claim to anti-religion.
What are you suggesting is NOT there because we are considering what is undeniably there - our 5% "measurable" Reality.
OK
Let me summarize the whole discussion then.
There no god (I use colloquial sense of this word b/c no other definition was given) in what we call "measurable" Reality.
There are a lot of things we don't know.
Although god may exist in a space of thing we don't know, we, without denying this possibility, simply ignore
it until such time when this existence is confirmed.
I agree.
Next topic.
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.
You have consistently NOT understood Arach's attempt to point out that every component of a living system would NOT be characterized as alive (as in a cell) which is why you miss the relevance of the "Body" analogy. Not everything that comprises your body is intelligent but that doesn't mean that you aren't (though sometimes I wonder
