Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
As long as you are intellectually unwilling to acknowledge that there are supportive reasons
|
Moderator cut: deleted
You think god exists - you think god has a mind - intellgience - or turned itself into a human to visit us - or that there is a continuation of human consciousness after the body and brain die - then you have to back those claims up. Not me.
And you have not done so. Even a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I acknowledge your obsession with the many BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . especially the Abrahamic. But they have NOTHING to do with the issue of EXISTENCE of God.
|
So you keep saying but it is just distraction. You have not backed up - in any way - either the existence of god - _or_ - the attributes you assign it. All you do is when someone questions you on one - is shift the conversation to the other. Dodge - dodge -dodge is your modus operandi on the site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is a entirely scientific issue
|
Great. Then lay out scientifically what you mean by "god" and lay out scientifcally what you think backs up the claim this defined thing exists. All ears.
Moderator cut: deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
They want the ability to claim that their position is the most logical position and to conclude there is no God . . . without having to provide any support for the conclusion. They pretend it isn't a conclusion.
|
Ah ur usual straw man game here. No we do not conclude there is no god. You just pretend we do because it is easier for you to attack the words you place in our mouth - than attack our position.
Our conclusion is that there is no reason to think there is a god. Does that mean there is one? No. It just means there is nothing at all to base the idea there is one on.
Moderator cut: deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There is an inscrutable and ineffable reality that is ubiquitous in scope and power that is responsible for the existence of and establishes and controls everything about our reality. It has the qualities that justify calling it God
|
So it is all big and awesome so you feel you want to use the word "god" to describe it. Lovely - but you are just labeling. You are not actually saying anything at all. You could just as easily subjectively decide to call it porridge. Or Pie. Or Mush. Or any word that tickles your brains linguistic centre.
But calling something god does not make it god. It is just a word. Like any other word. So it is worth asking what you are actually doing or saying because simply putting a word on your own awe at the universe is certainly not engaging in the debate the thread is about.
This thread is about using science to discuss the existence of god. If all you are doing is arbitrarily picking _something_ or in this case picking _everything_ and giving it the _label_ god then that is really conversation over - but you have added nothing to the actual thread topic.