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.
No, I don't get to dictate how you answer my questions...especially when you don't answer them...at all, in any way.
You just say whatever you say...without answering. That, from the guy that always expects his questions answered...and is relentless in demand.
But, that's the best part!!
The rest is the same disagreement we have had...and that will never change.
You call it "Composition". But an entity can't BE something...and not have the all the attributes of what it is.
If I title "ALL"--"GOD"...then EVERYTHING is "GOD", and "GOD" is everything.
Inclusive of ALL attributes...including consciousness and intelligence. ESPECIALLY that...as that is the "base" for the manifestation of ALL.
I gotta go...a couple of these crazy girls want me to bring them shopping in my SUV.
Oh man! I hope I survive this!
ok...if I title "NOTHING/nonexistence "--"GOD"...then NOTHING is "GOD", and "GOD" is nothing.
Last edited by mythunderstood; 11-28-2013 at 06:40 PM..
That is ACKNOWLEDGING the Godly attributes of our reality . . . NOT sculpting. Just because atheists choose to ignore the attributes of reality under the dodge of "We don't know what it is . . . but it is NOT God" . . . does not make acknowledging its "Godness" scultping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythunderstood
ok...if I title "NOTHING/nonexistence "--"GOD"...then NOTHING is "GOD", and "GOD" is nothing.
Stop ignoring the attributes of reality as if they are not determinate. It is the attributes that define the "Godness" of our reality. That is why it deserves the title God. This puerile evasion and dissembling is unseemly for any intellect.
Stop ignoring the attributes of reality as if they are not determinate. It is the attributes that define the "Godness" of our reality. That is why it deserves the title God. This puerile evasion and dissembling is unseemly for any intellect.
You ideas seem, as Alice said "just keep getting curiouser and curiouser."
It is the attributes [of reality] that define the "Godness" of our reality.
Let's see. The primary attributes of our reality is that it is completely indifferent to our happiness, preferences, suffering or lack thereof, indeed to our very existence. It is exactly what one would expect if there is not a personal, benevolent (or for that matter, malevolent) god who is influencing events relative to some sort of desired relationship with us particular critters on this particular planet. As such, nature (our reality) as god is vast, austere, cold and indifferent, although in practice it has been (accurately in my estimation) described as "red in tooth and claw".
As far as I can tell it isn't helpful to personify nature any more than it's helpful to personify, say, a volcano. Nature and the things within it like volcanoes, just are. It's not helpful to "multiply entities" and understand them as beings of some kind, much less a single all powerful god.
I don't understand how any of this would be helpful. What, exactly, do you get out of it? Where's the percentage in it? What observations do you take away from it that connect it with a particular general theology (Christianity) and how do you decide what parts of Christianity's particular holy book inform this connection?
And perhaps most fundamentally: how are your guesses about what all this means in any way better or more accurate than anyone else's?
All the attributes I use to establish the EXISTENCE of God are KNOWN and supported by science.
Yes - because all you are doing is observing the attributes of our reality that science has discovered and merely _calling that god_. In other words - the only reason the attributes match is you are simply using two words to descibe the same thing.
Meaingless word play - which would be irrelevant if you actually stopped there - but you do not. You make up all kinds of things _about_ this god in parallel in the hope that people who buy into the word "god" will simply accept your assertions on face value.
You are linguistically contriving to use the word "god" solely to lend weight to otherwise evidence fre claims you want to make elsewhere.
But quite simply the _only support_ you have for the existence of _god_ is simply to point at things that clearly do exist - and simply start calling them _god_ for the sake of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is ACKNOWLEDGING the Godly attributes of our reality . . . NOT sculpting.
You are not acknowledging anything. You are contriving to sculpt it and are just calling that acknowledgement in retrospect. Observing things and simply slapping the label _god_ on all and sundry with your over stocked linguistic label gun is nothing more than language play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Just because atheists choose to ignore the attributes of reality under the dodge of "We don't know what it is . . . but it is NOT God"
Once again playnig your usual "ignoring" mantra coupled with your usual straw man about atheists. Broken record. We ignore nothing. We simply do not share your conclusions. Not agreeing with you is not the same as ignoring anything. The claims you make have no support. We can not ignore the support if the support is not even there to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is the attributes that define the "Godness" of our reality.
No. The Atrributes of reality define that reality. You just slap the label _god_ on it with your linguistic label gun for the sake of it. The only reason these attributes define god is because _you_ define god to match those attributes.
No, I don't get to dictate how you answer my questions...especially when you don't answer them...at all, in any way.
You just say whatever you say...without answering. That, from the guy that always expects his questions answered...and is relentless in demand.
But, that's the best part!!
The rest is the same disagreement we have had...and that will never change.
You call it "Composition". But an entity can't BE something...and not have the all the attributes of what it is.
If I title "ALL"--"GOD"...then EVERYTHING is "GOD", and "GOD" is everything.
Inclusive of ALL attributes...including consciousness and intelligence. ESPECIALLY that...as that is the "base" for the manifestation of ALL.
I gotta go...a couple of these crazy girls want me to bring them shopping in my SUV.
Oh man! I hope I survive this!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
God is a process in various animal's brains? And here we've been told all along it is all of reality, the source of everything. Oh sorry, I mean the Source of Everything.
Strange how quickly this alleged god changes forms based on the needs of the debate at any given moment. It is almost as if some believers are just making it up as they go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythunderstood
ok...if I title "NOTHING/nonexistence "--"GOD"...then NOTHING is "GOD", and "GOD" is nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
Case closed.
Please explain how a title (GOD) being assigned to something based upon its attributes that are perceived to merit the assignment of that title...is argued against by something as ignorant as assigning that perceived meritorious attribute based title, to that (NOTHING/nonexistence) which has NO ATTRIBUTES?
What logic is there in assigning a "TITLE" that is based upon attributes...to that which has no attributes?
The only thing this "closes the case" on...is the inability of those to put up a logical argument.
But that figures, since The Atheist Platform is based upon Logical Fallacies:
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio)
Any conclusion drawn from a premise of "No evidence" does not meet the standards of "Pedigree Logic" and is a Logical Fallacy.
I'm waiting for the Atheists to proffer a Logical argument for consideration.
The argument they put forth whereby conclusions/determination are made off of the flawed premise "No evidence what-so-ever on offer" IS NOT LOGICAL...no matter now much they erroneously and/or ignorantly believe it to be logical.
Please explain how a title (GOD) being assigned to something based upon its attributes that are perceived to merit the assignment of that title...is argued against by something as ignorant as assigning that perceived meritorious attribute based title, to that (NOTHING/nonexistence) which has NO ATTRIBUTES?
What logic is there in assigning a "TITLE" that is based upon attributes...to that which has no attributes?
The only thing this "closes the case" on...is the inability of those to put up a logical argument.
But that figures, since The Atheist Platform is based upon Logical Fallacies:
Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio)
Any conclusion drawn from a premise of "No evidence" does not meet the standards of "Pedigree Logic" and is a Logical Fallacy.
I'm waiting for the Atheists to proffer a Logical argument for consideration.
The argument they put forth whereby conclusions/determination are made off of the flawed premise "No evidence what-so-ever on offer" IS NOT LOGICAL...no matter now much they erroneously and/or ignorantly believe it to be logical.
Like I said before, atheists believe in the universe/nature/reality. You just happen to label it "god." What effectively is the difference between you and an atheist? Your morals don't come from this "god", you cannot petition this god to do things on your behalf, this god cannot "save" you, etc. So what is the difference? And why is it so important to you to try fit in with the popular crowd that you try to "pass" as a theist on technicality by relabeling the universe/nature/reality as "god"? I say this because you are constantly bringing up pantheism and other such beliefs as if the fact the more people that believe what you do has any effect on whether something actually exists (god) or is true:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
......<snip from an earlier post>.....The concept of "GOD is ALL" is one of the most widely held theological concepts...and it is ultra-formidable in The Arena of World Merit and Influence.
It's Atheism that has no power or might in that regard...and has spent the past many thousands of years getting trounced and crushed.
What does it matter if "god is all" is one of the "most formidable theological concepts" etc? Ok, so? You act as though there is some kind of contest. That we atheists are getting "trounced and crushed" by the popular crowd. Sorry that I am not cool enough for the popular crowd, but I don't base my beliefs upon what is considered to be most popular. I remain without belief until/unless I am provided with convincing evidenced that something exists.
Last edited by mythunderstood; 11-29-2013 at 12:14 PM..
GldnRule - do you there is a logical argument for anything we don't think exists? Do you think it is possible to have a logical argument that big foot, dragons or gnomes don't exist?
GldnRule - do you there is a logical argument for anything we don't think exists? Do you think it is possible to have a logical argument that big foot, dragons or gnomes don't exist?
The operative part of your question being "don't THINK exists".
Since, I assume you are looking at it from the standpoint that we can draw conclusions of nonexistence from a premise that there is no evidence that they do.
Ya see manderly...it IS possible to have an argument that they don't exist that works off a "no evidence" premise...just not one that conforms to Pedigree Logic.
It is a "good reason"...just not a "perfect" one, that conforms to a "Pure Logic" standard.
One can believe despite lack of evidence.
As I have stated before, if I didn't perceive evidence, I wouldn't believe either...even though my NonBelief would be based upon a Logical Fallacy.
See, I understand that Logical Fallacies can, and many times do, arrive at true conclusions...so I have no problem using them to make some determinations...much like the arguments Atheists typically use when employing "Lack of evidence" as a basis for their determination not to believe in GOD(s).
Funny though...It's almost like it's MY fault that, "Conclusions made based on lack of evidence", is a Logical Fallacy!
But, here's the way it really is: argumentum e silentio (Argument from silence) This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is based on the silence of the opponent, failing to give proof, and/or based on "lack of evidence". argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance) also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"). This fallacy claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. Also, this fallacy This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
So, one can make assumptions...but one cannot LOGICALLY conclude to adopt a position based upon a "no evidence" premise.
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.
