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.
Here is what you, et al, refuse to acknowledge.
"GOD" is a TITLE...
The is the kind of linguistic back flipping you like to do when cornered. You simply retreat into declaring "god" to be nothing more than a word, a metaphor, or a title. Or whatever cop out you feel like today.
But when pressed it is clear you think it a lot more than that. You admitted yourself you think this "god" is an intelligent, conscious entity. Yet when asked to substantiate THAT in any way you do one of three things. Present the fallacy of composition to back up your position. Present argumentum ad populum to wriggle out of having to back up you position. Or retreat back into linguistic vacuous nonsense in order to back track from the thing you can not back up in your position.
Here is what you, et al, refuse to acknowledge.
"GOD" is a TITLE...like "hero", "friend", "President", "Champion", "sweetheart", etc...that can be assigned by one that perceives someone/something as meritorious of having that title assigned.
We all know what a hero is, a friend is, a president is, a champion is, a sweetheart is. There is no need to reinvent definitions to understand the meaning of those titles so grouping god as a title fails. We all know gods are the inventions of man over time.
Quote:
That another doesn't have the same perception...does not diminish or invalidate a differing perception of merit.
I will give you an example:
I say that I think some man that ran into a burning building and helped people to find their way out safely is a "Hero" for doing that because of the risks he took to do it.
That man would either be a fireman or law enforcement officer. If it were a civilian, his actions would be driven from empathy. Some may even call him an idiot for risking his life w/o proper PPE.
Quote:
BUT...someone else claims they have a different perception.
They argue that: Running is no big deal, most people can run...helping those people wasn't special, lots of people help others...that the building was on fire isn't of much of a factor, the guy was a trained firefighter, knew the risk was minimal, and besides was being paid to do it as a job. Many people have dangerous jobs, that involve risk and they are not considered "Hero's" for doing them.
They could say that they don't consider him a "Hero"...and furthermore they don't believe in the concept of "Hero's" at all...that there is no such thing.
They argue...They feel, simply because some people are willing to take risks others won't...is nothing special in their perspective. Cliff climbers and people surfing big waves, take the same, if not greater risk, for fun.
They challenge me to provide "Objective Proof that can be demonstrated by the Scientific Method" that "Hero's Exist".
Heroism is a trait when people put their own interests and safety in hold to help others in need. I am sure many Americans and indeed globally would consider Neil Armstrong to be a hero. Was he really a hero or is that a title conferred upon him? My guess is (w/o checking) he and his crew got medals and accolades of many forms.
Quote:
NOW...answer these:
Does that now mean my perception is "invalidated"...and I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"?
Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
OR
Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
Your argument is baseless as hero can mean so many different things to different people. Do you see how this is turning out? Pretty much the same as your lame reality is god arguments.
A guy killed in combat is considered a hero as that title honours his alleged sacrifice. In reality, it was bad luck he did not keep his head down or was in the landing zone of a mortar. I think soldiers that volunteer are idiots and getting killed in action is part of the risk. Why should I consider them a hero if they die? It would be the same as a soldier that risks his life to help another wounded soldier in combat. The powers that be confer medals on such actions but the idiotic soldiers do not realise they are a pawn in their master's hands. Whether they die or survive, achieving the objective is the prime motivator. A bit of tin on a ribbon is supposed to make them feel good about themselves or motivate them to do more stupid things for their masters?
Here is what you, et al, refuse to acknowledge.
"GOD" is a TITLE...like "hero", "friend", "President", "Champion", "sweetheart", etc...that can be assigned by one that perceives someone/something as meritorious of having that title assigned.
That another doesn't have the same perception...does not diminish or invalidate a differing perception of merit.
I will give you an example:
I say that I think some man that ran into a burning building and helped people to find their way out safely is a "Hero" for doing that because of the risks he took to do it.
BUT...someone else claims they have a different perception.
They argue that: Running is no big deal, most people can run...helping those people wasn't special, lots of people help others...that the building was on fire isn't of much of a factor, the guy was a trained firefighter, knew the risk was minimal, and besides was being paid to do it as a job. Many people have dangerous jobs, that involve risk and they are not considered "Hero's" for doing them.
They could say that they don't consider him a "Hero"...and furthermore they don't believe in the concept of "Hero's" at all...that there is no such thing.
They argue...They feel, simply because some people are willing to take risks others won't...is nothing special in their perspective. Cliff climbers and people surfing big waves, take the same, if not greater risk, for fun.
They challenge me to provide "Objective Proof that can be demonstrated by the Scientific Method" that "Hero's Exist".
NOW...answer these:
Does that now mean my perception is "invalidated"...and I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"?
Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
OR
Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
thinking along,
In the suggested analogy,
the individual and happening which is the subject matter allowing for a classification, hero or non hero validation, the subject is fully described.
the moments in putting out the fire are relayed and all that is left is an opinon in the behav, very honorable or no big deal, a classification of something fully explained and concrete.
Yet in the corresponding for analogy , an effort to validate the reality of a God - nothing is brought forward.
If its said for example well okay the view holds God is the creation, or a tree or all creation the ultimate reality, it needs to be explained in order to comprehend what is being talked about,
no different then the explaining necessary in the guy putting out the fire, detail so the issue or subject being brought forward can be itself communicated.
once achieved another opinion is possible.
nothing can be exchanged in communication unless it is described so the subject of whats being talked about can be considered for what it is. Even I think if it is a deep unconscious unprovoked or whatever gut knowing , the God idea and what it roughly implies, it would need to be communicated or described as in the analogy explaining the firefighter.
Last edited by alexcanter; 11-28-2013 at 01:49 AM..
The is the kind of linguistic back flipping you like to do when cornered. You simply retreat into declaring "god" to be nothing more than a word, a metaphor, or a title. Or whatever cop out you feel like today.
But when pressed it is clear you think it a lot more than that. You admitted yourself you think this "god" is an intelligent, conscious entity. Yet when asked to substantiate THAT in any way you do one of three things. Present the fallacy of composition to back up your position. Present argumentum ad populum to wriggle out of having to back up you position. Or retreat back into linguistic vacuous nonsense in order to back track from the thing you can not back up in your position.
Hey...Happy Thanksgiving Nozz!
I've been explaining "GOD" is a assigned title, based upon known and observed attributes, for years...it's nothing new I'm doing now.
AGAIN, as per my perception: GOD isn't just conscious...GOD IS consciousness. GOD isn't just intelligent...GOD IS intelligence. To ME.
How can something not have the attributes of what it is? That's not just "composition"...and you know it.
AND...who are you to tell anyone else that YOUR perception of GOD supersedes or invalidates THEIRS? On what basis do you do that?
It's actually a joke...an Atheist telling Theists what perception(s) of GOD(s) people are allowed to have!
I can always count on you, though. Not to answer the questions...but to give me some of what I come here for.
Yes...much to be thankful for with you man!
BUT...with all that writing there...I'd have thought you would have addressed a little bit of the questions I asked.
Try giving that a shot...if you can.
Answer those questions...straight up. I wanna see it.
the individual and happening which is the subject matter allowing for a classification, hero or non hero validation, the subject is fully described.
the moments in putting out the fire are relayed and all that is left is an opinon in the behav, whether it is very honorable or no big deal, a classification of something fully explained and concrete.
Yet in the corresponding for analogy , an effort to validate the reality of a God - nothing is brought forward.
If its said for example well okay the view holds God is the creation, or a tree or all creation the ultimate reality, it needs to be explained in order to comprehend what is being talked about,
no different then the explaining necessary in the guy putting out the fire, detail so the issue or subject thats being brought forward can be itself communicated.
once that is acheived another opinion is possible.
nothing can be exchanged in communication unless it is described so the subject of whats being talked about can be considered for what it is. Even I think if it is a deep unconscious unprovoked or whatever gut knowing , the God idea and what it roughly implies, it needs to be communicated or described as in the analogy explaining.
Happy Thanksgiving alex.
I've put this up many times, check it out:
We DO KNOW that the mass/energy that DOES IN FACT EXIST...creates through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created through "laws" and "processes", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a God.
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining happened out of what some believe to be "chaos"...and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this mass/energy was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it DOES EXIST...AND...by it's KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by labeling that which we know to exist (and has the attributes that we know to define a God) something other than the "God" that it is by definition...they then deny the existence of God.
But then they turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
No matter..."God" by any other name/title is still "God".
I've been explaining "GOD" is a assigned title, based upon known and observed attributes, for years...it's nothing new I'm doing now.
I do not recall suggesting it was something new. If you bothered to read my post I did quite the opposite. I am pointing out it is a linguistic place you retreat to often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
AGAIN, as per my perception: GOD isn't just conscious...GOD IS consciousness. GOD isn't just intelligent...GOD IS intelligence. To ME.
Which is just linguistic relabeling. Again. You are taking something that already has a word, and simply changing the word for it to "god".
But you are again back tracking from your actual claim, by using this linguistic nonsense.
Your actual claim is that reality itself, the universe itself, is ITSELF conscious. And when asked to back that up you either:
1) Present the Fallacy Of Composition as if it proves your point.
2) Use Argumentum ad Populum to dodge having to back up your point.
3) Retreat once again to the linguistic gymnastics above to back track from your point.
I do not recall suggesting it was something new. If you bothered to read my post I did quite the opposite. I am pointing out it is a linguistic place you retreat to often.
Which is just linguistic relabeling. Again. You are taking something that already has a word, and simply changing the word for it to "god".
But you are again back tracking from your actual claim, by using this linguistic nonsense.
Your actual claim is that reality itself, the universe itself, is ITSELF conscious. And when asked to back that up you either:
1) Present the Fallacy Of Composition as if it proves your point.
2) Use Argumentum ad Populum to dodge having to back up your point.
3) Retreat once again to the linguistic gymnastics above to back track from your point.
I perceive Reality/The Universe as GOD. To ME.
Your perception is inconsequential to invalidating mine.
You wanna take a shot at those questions you haven't yet answered? Or are you avoiding them because you know you have no rebuttal of any merit?
I know. Repeating that does not add anything to it. My point is simply that changing the word says or does nothing except changes the word. You are making as much sense as if you had said you perceive the universe as apples.
I find the useless and empty, but irrelevant. Your core claim is that the universe is itself also intelligent and conscious and I am pointing out that aside from the Fallacy of Composition, and two aforementioned frequent dodge methods, you are not substantiating such a nonsense claim. At all. Anywhere. Ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You wanna take a shot at those questions you haven't yet answered? Or are you avoiding them because you know you have no rebuttal of any merit?
The above points are my answers. You not liking my answers does not warrant sticking your fingers in your ears and with a "La la la" pretending I never gave answers.
Happy Thanksgiving alex.
I've put this up many times, check it out:
We DO KNOW that the mass/energy that DOES IN FACT EXIST...creates through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created through "laws" and "processes", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a God.
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining happened out of what some believe to be "chaos"...and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this mass/energy was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it DOES EXIST...AND...by it's KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by labeling that which we know to exist (and has the attributes that we know to define a God) something other than the "God" that it is by definition...they then deny the existence of God.
But then they turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
No matter..."God" by any other name/title is still "God".
Thankyou and happy thanksgiving to you as well.
Mass and energy are only able to comply with force gravity everywhere in the universe,
Therefore mass and energy are a subject in answer to something else . If mass and energy are God, who is gravity ?
Last edited by alexcanter; 11-28-2013 at 02:47 AM..
I know. Repeating that does not add anything to it. My point is simply that changing the word says or does nothing except changes the word. You are making as much sense as if you had said you perceive the universe as apples.
I find the useless and empty, but irrelevant. Your core claim is that the universe is itself also intelligent and conscious and I am pointing out that aside from the Fallacy of Composition, and two aforementioned frequent dodge methods, you are not substantiating such a nonsense claim. At all. Anywhere. Ever.
The above points are my answers. You not liking my answers does not warrant sticking your fingers in your ears and with a "La la la" pretending I never gave answers.
You did not specifically answer the questions.
Here:
I will give you an example:
I say that I think some man that ran into a burning building and helped people to find their way out safely is a "Hero" for doing that because of the risks he took to do it.
BUT...someone else claims they have a different perception.
They argue that: Running is no big deal, most people can run...helping those people wasn't special, lots of people help others...that the building was on fire isn't of much of a factor, the guy was a trained firefighter, knew the risk was minimal, and besides was being paid to do it as a job. Many people have dangerous jobs, that involve risk and they are not considered "Hero's" for doing them.
They could say that they don't consider him a "Hero"...and furthermore they don't believe in the concept of "Hero's" at all...that there is no such thing.
They argue...They feel, simply because some people are willing to take risks others won't...is nothing special in their perspective. Cliff climbers and people surfing big waves, take the same, if not greater risk, for fun.
They challenge me to provide "Objective Proof that can be demonstrated by the Scientific Method" that "Hero's Exist".
NOW...answer these:
Does that now mean my perception is "invalidated"...and I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"?
Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
OR
Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
Answer THOSE questions...directly, as presented, relative to the scenario I proposed.
Also: I don't "retreat" to that position. "Retreat" is a defensive posture...I don't ever post it from that posture.
GOD IS a title...that can be added to anything or anyone that is perceived as having attributes meritorious to be titled such.
NOTHING is "named" "GOD". "GOD" is a descriptive title...not a name. Like "President" or "King".
ANYTHING or ANYONE can be "GOD" to whoever perceives them as such. You STILL need to get hip to that.
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.
