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.
To any fairminded person the bold is far more justification for the term "God" than you have for your preferred nihilistic term. .
Nonsense . There is no reason to use a theistic term to refer to the natural universe . We know the universe is the universe . We don’t know the universe is God. Your definition of the universe as God is meaningless for anything but a tool of argument for you. God has a definite religious meaning to 99.999% of the world, and that meaning does not equate to the natural universe .
No such reclassification is necessary. Why do you give ascendance to the term Universe over God when God was the term that was initially used until science and religion split. It is pure arrogance to assert one over the other. But if the attribute of being entirely responsible for ALL existence and the order of its appearance and use have any merit, the term God has the priority position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
To any fair-minded person the bold is far more justification for the term "God" than you have for your preferred nihilistic term. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Nonsense. There is no reason to use a theistic term to refer to the natural universe. We know the universe is the universe. We don’t know the universe is God. Your definition of the universe as God is meaningless for anything but a tool of argument for you. God has a definite religious meaning to 99.999% of the world, and that meaning does not equate to the natural universe.
Ad populum fallacy. We don't know WHAT our Reality is let alone that it is a mindless universe that somehow magically created minds!!! It is far more reasonable to presume that a mind reproduced minds.
Ad populum fallacy. We don't know WHAT our Reality is let alone that it is a mindless universe that somehow magically created minds!!! It is far more reasonable to presume that a mind reproduced minds.
Why? What created the mind that you insist created our minds ?
BTW, you are verging into the ridiculous with calling referring to the universe as the universe an ad populum fallacy and insisting minds were created by magic . And you routinely insist we don’t know what the universe is, but then turn around and insist we call it by a theistic name . That’s silly in the extreme .
Why? What created the mind that you insist created our minds ?
I didn't say created, I said reproduced. Whatever our Reality IS, it just exists, period. We have no idea why or how and we have no need to. All the infinite regress nonsense is just that, nonsense! Whatever it is, it must be living, conscious, and be reproducing consciousness. There simply is no other more reasonable source of the completely unique attributes of life and consciousness anywhere in the fundamental elements and chemicals that comprise our Reality. YMMV.
Quote:
BTW, you are verging into the ridiculous with calling referring to the universe as the universe an ad populum fallacy and insisting minds were created by magic. And you routinely insist we don’t know what the universe is, but then turn around and insist we call it by a theistic name. That’s silly in the extreme.
There is nothing silly about referring to a living, conscious Reality as God, the euphemistic emergence nonsense notwithstanding.
I didn't say created, I said reproduced. Whatever our Reality IS, it just exists, period. We have no idea why or how and we have no need to. All the infinite regress nonsense is just that, nonsense! Whatever it is, it must be living, conscious, and be reproducing consciousness. There simply is no other more reasonable source of the completely unique attributes of life and consciousness anywhere in the fundamental elements and chemicals that comprise our Reality. YMMV. There is nothing silly about referring to a living, conscious Reality as God, the euphemistic emergence nonsense notwithstanding.
Sure we have a need to know. If human minds cannot come into being in their own, then where did the mind of God come from? It is you who seem to be insisting something like a mind cannot just pop into existence, so from whence did the mind of God come from?
As to the last sentence, you have not shown your universe as God to be conscious. There is no scientific evidence the universe is conscious. Hence, we don’t refer to it by names that suggest it is more than the universe as science understands it UNTIL such time as that evidence is forthcoming.
No such reclassification is necessary. Why do you give ascendance to the term Universe over God when God was the term that was initially used until science and religion split. It is pure arrogance to assert one over the other. But if the attribute of being entirely responsible for ALL existence and the order of its appearance and use have any merit, the term God has the priority position.
Nonsense, your attribute excludes most gods as gods, as it is an attribute of creator gods only. It is also true of atheism, our ultimate reality being responsible for everything is a tautology, which refutes your question begging.
Most gods are intelligent and anthropomorphic. But we understand why you omit that trait, preferring to choose the one you can beg the question with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
To any fairminded person the bold is far more justification for the term "God" than you have for your preferred nihilistic term. .
Ad populum fallacy. We don't know WHAT our Reality is let alone that it is a mindless universe that somehow magically created minds!!! It is far more reasonable to presume that a mind reproduced minds.
When has a mind ever reproduced a mind?
A brain hasn't even reproduced a brain.
"pure arrogance" is to assert one over the other??!!! I must surmise you mean arrogance is required to call the universe we can touch and see, to be different from that we can not. Since when are emotions required in analysis and classification based on observable attributes?
Accepting God the deity requires belief in what can not be seen nor detected. Accepting the Universe/Reality only requires accepting what is readily seen and detectable.
If you'd like to agree god/universe/reality is either NOT a deity, we can agree to consider the words interchangeable. I can accept that. However you claim the universe is a deity, then attributes that align with the meaning inherent in the word deity, must be supported. I do not believe the universe has demonstrated it has the attributes, we mean when we use the word god, yet I do believe the universe exists. Most of us use different words, to denote the differences in observation.
Conflating the two words in an attempt to convince people the universe is a deity continues to be an ineffective non-sequitur.
Why do you insist that God must be something we cannot observe and detect when it is only God's consciousness that is beyond detection. Everything else we observe and detect is God. We cannot observe and detect our own or other consciousnesses yet we accept they exist. Why would we assume God's consciousness must be observable and detectable if ours aren't?
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.
