U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2019, 11:35 PM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
God is just a word. You are the one demanding that other people give it characteristics that word lacks...not anyone else.

Being nothing more than the source of everything is not a definition on dictionary.com, nor is it in most people's minds. Therefore, you have zero reason to expect anybody else to perceive it that way...much less get annoyed when they do not.

If you want to invent a new, personal definition for God, like many people do...I don't particularly care, because I understand that using certain words can be fun for people in a kind of silly, trivial way.

If you believe in something you consider important...it shouldn't matter to you what we call it. You can just describe it via it's characteristics and it won't matter whether you use the word "God" or not anyway.
Clearly, you are not reading critically because I simply maintain that at a MINIMUM an unquestionable attribute of God would be the SOURCE of everything that exists. So to maintain that the default should be that no God exists is untenable in the face of the indisputable fact that a SOURCE exists that is responsible for everything that exists. You can deny that a Bible God exists as a default. You can deny that a Koran God exists as a default. You can deny that a Vedic God exists as a default, etc. But you have no grounds for denying that God exists as the Source of everything.

 
Old 07-03-2019, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,437 posts, read 10,385,168 times
Reputation: 20299
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Clearly, you are not reading critically because I simply maintain that at a MINIMUM an unquestionable attribute of God would be the SOURCE of everything that exists. So to maintain that the default should be that no God exists in the face of the indisputable fact that a SOURCE exists that is responsible for everything that exists is untenable. You can deny that a Bible God exists as a default. You can deny that a Koran God exists as a default. You can deny that a Vedic God exists as a default, etc. But you have no grounds for denying that God as the Source of everything exists.
No. That is disputable. Millions of people dispute it.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 11:44 PM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
No. That is disputable. Millions of people dispute it.
Millions dispute that there is a source responsible for the existence of everything? That is irrational.
 
Old 07-03-2019, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Clearly, you are not reading critically because I simply maintain that at a MINIMUM an unquestionable attribute of God would be the SOURCE of everything that exists. So to maintain that the default should be that no God exists is untenable in the face of the indisputable fact that a SOURCE exists that is responsible for everything that exists. You can deny that a Bible God exists as a default. You can deny that a Koran God exists as a default. You can deny that a Vedic God exists as a default, etc. But you have no grounds for denying that God exists as the Source of everything.
I read fine. You don't. You're insisting that God has a definition it doesn't. Not many people are going to feel particularly comforted if they find out the "God" they've thought has been watching over them isn't intelligent.

You're not merely suggesting that like a reasonable person might...you're demanding that's the only way to perceive the word, despite the extreme majority of society disagreeing.

Furthermore, you know exactly what people mean when they say "There is no evidence for God" or "I don't believe in God" and to claim they're making unreasonable statements doesn't make any sense because society agrees with their version of God...not yours...whatever that is. You're engaging in pointless semantic bickering, and I generally have no problem with other people engaging in pointless, semantic bickering, until they start calling other people unreasonable for communicating more concisely and clearly.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 12:14 AM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
I read fine. You don't. You're insisting that God has a definition it doesn't. Not many people are going to feel particularly comforted if they find out the "God" they've thought has been watching over them isn't intelligent.

You're not merely suggesting that like a reasonable person might...you're demanding that's the only way to perceive the word, despite the extreme majority of society disagreeing.

Furthermore, you know exactly what people mean when they say "There is no evidence for God" or "I don't believe in God" and to claim they're making unreasonable statements doesn't make any sense because society agrees with their version of God...not yours...whatever that is. You're engaging in pointless semantic bickering, and I generally have no problem with other people engaging in pointless, semantic bickering, until they start calling other people unreasonable for communicating more concisely and clearly.
What do you not understand about the fact that I am only asserting a MINIMUM attribute that the concept of God would possess. The existential question has nothing to do with what most people think about God. It is an empirical question that is answered by evidence of a source for the existence of everything. When we are concerned about what is the default position based on extant evidence the minimalist attribute of the concept is controlling.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,661 posts, read 2,865,682 times
Reputation: 2880
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Millions dispute that there is a source responsible for the existence of everything? That is irrational.
I think what was implied is that millions dispute that a divine source is responsible for the existence of everything. That is not irrational.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 12:24 AM
 
40,034 posts, read 26,715,004 times
Reputation: 6047
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
I think what was implied is that millions dispute that a divine source is responsible for the existence of everything. That is not irrational.
How could the source of everything NOT be divine whatever its other attributes are or are not?
 
Old 07-04-2019, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What do you not understand about the fact that I am only asserting a MINIMUM attribute that the concept of God would possess. The existential question has nothing to do with what most people think about God. It is an empirical question that is answered by evidence of a source for the existence of everything. When we are concerned about what is the default position based on extant evidence the minimalist attribute of the concept is controlling.
I haven't the faintest clue why you would think I don't understand that you're only asserting a minimum attribute that the concept of God would possess. That's not anything most people would consider God. I'm not talking about what they personally believe. I'm saying...if most people heard you say God doesn't need intelligence, they're going to be confused and believe you to be wrong.

Now, let's recap and I'll explain more about why I'm annoyed by your posts on here. Ahem:


Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
You're trying to make it complicated where it's not.

Science is about verifiable evidence.

And in terms of god, there is none.

Period.

That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have faith in god. It just means there's no verifiable evidence for faith in god.
Now there, we see phetaroi obviously talking about an intelligent God - a sentient being, because that's what God typically means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
what god are you talking about?
Here we see Arach Angle beginning his dancing/riddling gnome thing. We didn't get the full show here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Any god.
Here we see phetaroi still pretty clearly referring to an intelligent being...not a source of all that is...but an intelligent being, because everybody but you and, like, two other people somewhere on the planet define God as an intelligent being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are Wrong, period! There is plenty of evidence but you do not consider it ENOUGH because you refer to call it any name but God. How you can dismiss as NOT GOD the very source of your existence and the existence of everything we know about and do not know about is beyond my ken. What extraordinary arrogance and hubris! What the H--- would a God have to do to impress you that it is a God relative to you?????? Pretending it is nothing or some ineffable something but NOT God is puerile and pedantic.
And here you go into a vitriolic rage in which you demand that other people share your definition of God and you call them arrogant and filled with hubris merely because of a trivial semantic disagreement.

Simmer down. Drink less coffee or something.
 
Old 07-04-2019, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,342 posts, read 2,971,301 times
Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
How could the source of everything NOT be divine whatever its other attributes are or are not?
A better question is

#1. Why would anyone want to call it that?

and #2. Why would it matter whether we do or not?
 
Old 07-04-2019, 01:33 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,437 posts, read 10,385,168 times
Reputation: 20299
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Millions dispute that there is a source responsible for the existence of everything? That is irrational.
First of all, that's not what I was responding to, and you know it. But you wanna move the goal posts. But, as to that, you said, "you have no grounds for denying that God exists as the Source of everything".

What I was responding to was that you think that what you believe is "indisputable fact".
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top