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.
Thgere is no question to beg. Either our Reality is God to us or it is NOT. Since it IS the very Source of our existence, that MINIMALLY qualifies it as God to us whether or not you like it. The only thing you can do is object to any OTHER attributes you think God MUST have to qualify as God in your mind.
Thgere is no question to beg. Either our Reality is God to us or it is NOT. Since it IS the very Source of our existence, that MINIMALLY qualifies it as God to us whether or not you like it. The only thing you can do is object to any OTHER attributes you think God MUST have to qualify as God in your mind.
You appear to be the only one that believes that. Why do you keep spamming every thread with this? Take it to the Pantheism thread.
People can say anything is God, it seems. Pantheism is not credible, and is not a traditional religion. It is more like a point of view or worldly belief. By now "God" is a word that could be anything, not for prayer, or to have a relationship with it or Him. If God is everything, then he is nothing, as well.
Yes.
Definition normally means what something is and it can be filled with endless things. I think to really know what something is, we also have to know what it is not. That's defining. Even if it is claimed that God is the source of everything, that still infers that the source is finite. In order to know what source is, we have to know what it is not.
If a god exists in this Pantheism worldview, then I think humans are incapable of detecting it. Sapiens denotes discernment. The bound base cern denotes "distinguish, separate, sift." That is what humans do in order to know something.
Thgere is no question to beg. Either our Reality is God to us or it is NOT. Since it IS the very Source of our existence, that MINIMALLY qualifies it as God to us whether or not you like it. The only thing you can do is object to any OTHER attributes you think God MUST have to qualify as God in your mind.
When did you get in charge of what posters can object to or not?
Is Reality the souce of our existence or simply how we view the World we find ourselves? And just how does your claim / belief that God is Reality even explain what reality is, what your God is or howcwe got into existence.
So the questiin that is begged to be answered is of what meaning or use is your claim God is Reality do for us, how does it explain anything orveven describe anything? Certainly nothing to guide us or halp us in any useful manner.
And as far as your second sentence goes, that is just your claim not backed by science as you often allude to, not able to be proved or disproved by science as you have admitted. Simply your personal belief you seem to thinkwe all must share.
When did you get in charge of what posters can object to or not?
Is Reality the souce of our existence or simply how we view the World we find ourselves? And just how does your claim / belief that God is Reality even explain what reality is, what your God is or howcwe got into existence.
So the questiin that is begged to be answered is of what meaning or use is your claim God is Reality do for us, how does it explain anything orveven describe anything? Certainly nothing to guide us or halp us in any useful manner.
And as far as your second sentence goes, that is just your claim not backed by science as you often allude to, not able to be proved or disproved by science as you have admitted. Simply your personal belief you seem to think we all must share.
Actually, I have a rather detailed rationale in my Synthesis that employs established scientific knowledge to present a plausible explanation for how God as Consciousness establishes the spacetime field (quantum foam) that comprises our Reality and what our role is in it.
Actually, I have a rather detailed rationale in my Synthesis that employs established scientific knowledge to present a plausible explanation for how God as Consciousness establishes the spacetime field (quantum foam) that comprises our Reality and what our role is in it.
You have taken work done by scientists and came to you own opinion. Has your "theory" been tested or even peer review?
Besides it is jusr your own personal opinion and it resulrs ib a claim that has no real world value.
In additon you are claiming not only that your assumption is correct but even worse you are now claiming that there is only one alternative to your ideas and its not a,claim that anyone else has ever made.
There is zero evidence that Reality must mean God or Not God. Just your word games and insults.
Until you publish your hyphoteis and have it peer reviewed and tested it is not scientific theory nor does it model the real world. It does nothing and means next to nothing.
You have taken work done by scientists and came to you own opinion. Has your "theory" been tested or even peer review?
Besides it is jusr your own personal opinion and it resulrs ib a claim that has no real world value.
In additon you are claiming not only that your assumption is correct but even worse you are now claiming that there is only one alternative to your ideas and its not a,claim that anyone else has ever made.
There is zero evidence that Reality must mean God or Not God. Just your word games and insults.
Until you publish your hyphoteis and have it peer reviewed and tested it is not scientific theory nor does it model the real world. It does nothing and means next to nothing.
The best response to his ideas.
That's not to say he may not be right, but what he has been doing is not science, but anecdote...nothing wrong with anecdotes, but not science.
That's not to say he may not be right, but what he has been doing is not science, but anecdote...nothing wrong with anecdotes, but not science.
Thanks. Its not his repeatedly claim that his is the correct view but his constant mocking and belittlng those who do not accept his idea jyst on his say so
Actually, I have a rather detailed rationale in my Synthesis that employs established scientific knowledge to present a plausible explanation for how God as Consciousness establishes the spacetime field (quantum foam) that comprises our Reality and what our role is in it.
I dont believe your synthesis does explain that. Yoy occassionally reference authors but mostly write what you believe. And dismiss authors you do not agree wifh but offer nofhing but your own opinion.
I do admit i am mostly used to of papers in the Earth sciences or in biology but your synthesis offers little to back your claim that God is Reality. Are there any published scientific papers that porport that God is Realify?
Thgere is no question to beg. Either our Reality is God to us or it is NOT.
So there IS a question to beg, is it a god or not? And you cherry picked ONE trait of mythical creator gods and used that as your definition. That is where you begged the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Since it IS the very Source of our existence, that MINIMALLY qualifies it as God to us whether or not you like it.
No it does NOT MINIMALLY qualify it as a god as it is also true for atheism. So once again you need something extra to qualify our existence as a god. Your argument is like saying cats have four legs, that MINIMALLY qualifies Mr Yap as a Yorkshire Terrier cat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The only thing you can do is object to any OTHER attributes you think God MUST have to qualify as God in your mind.
No, I can also (once again) object to your childish logic that someone of your claimed intellectual abilities should not honestly be making.
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.