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.
Well, since everything that exists and has existed has manifested through the "GOD" (including ALL the ponds & the water in 'em) I perceive...I'd say, VERY "significant".
Manifesting EVERYTHING...is "doing something" that is "significant"...TO ME.
It doesn't have to be TO YOU...you are entitled to what you perceive as "doing something significant".
good point in opinion,
and it would seem engineered,
and in the notice, allows man to make a common association because it gives a common ground language in the engineering process, where man can engineer things as well,
including engineering the idea in whether or not, this thing is engineered, or self engineered & engineering as the scheme has it in God is all.
Last edited by alexcanter; 11-29-2013 at 04:30 PM..
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.
An overarching consciousness/intelligence with directive intent is the bare minimum attribute to assign the label "God" to anything. Otherwise it doesn't "deserve the title God'.
'Known' science does NOT support the Universe or Reality having an overarching consciousness /intelligence with directive intent. If it is your belief that there is credible scientific evidence for this, then why have you not presented it? Answer- because there is none. It's all just wishful thinking and conjecture.
It seems it is you who is doing the "puerile evasion and dissembling that is unseemly for any intellect".
Well, since my perception of "GOD" is "ALL"...if there was no "GOD", there would be no "ALL".
I guess you could say that wouldn't matter...because if there wasn't ever anything, and just nothing...there would never be anyone to know it.
BUT...since there is "something", (including us) because of said manifestation...I acknowledge the significance of it from that standpoint.
I have a question for you and others: Why does it seem that you rather debate about ME, and why I believe what I believe...rather than directly debate the merit of the concepts and perceptions themselves? I have no problem with it at all...but just wondering.
Since it doesn't really matter, why even acknowledge it, instead of focusing on what we all can perceive and affect, i.e. science and reason, without the God "interference"?
I've not asked a question about you in this debate, only about the God that you perceive. Regardless of what you'd like to believe, it's really not about you.
Last edited by Amaznjohn; 11-30-2013 at 05:38 AM..
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"?
You haven't really thought that analogy through very well. It actually shows up the HUGE flaw in your argument.
The subject is a human who is conscious and aware and made an intentional decision to put his own life at risk and act to save the lives of others. The description of 'Hero' would be appropriate.
If the sprinkler system was set off automatically by the smoke and fire and the people were saved, would you call the sprinkler system a "Hero"? No. It would be ridiculous and totally inappropriate. The sprinkler system is not alive and is not capable of making any conscious decisions or acting intentionally.
The same goes if it started raining and the fire was put out and the people were saved. You wouldn't call the rain a "Hero". That would be silly.
All your blather about whether other people perceived the man's actions as being worthy or not of being called a hero and whether that proves heroes exist or not is just a red herring and irrelevant nonsense. At least the man was alive and could make conscious decisions so he was at least capable of doing something to warrant being called a hero.
For something to be called "God" I would think that at least the bare minimum requirements would be for that something to have an overarching intelligence, be consciously aware, and be capable of acting with intent.
There is NO scientific evidence that the Universe or Reality itself is intelligent or consciously aware and capable of acting with intent. In fact all the evidence points to the opposite. Mysti might waffle on about the concept of a Universal Consciousness Field as if it is 'known science' but it's not. Not even close. It's just wishful thinking on his part to try to explain his experiences while meditating. Neuroscience already has a reasonable and rather mundane explanation for it, but that doesn't suit Mysti - perhaps because it wouldn't make him feel 'special'?
So to me, calling the Universe or Reality "God" is as a silly as calling a sprinkler system or the rain, a "Hero".
But hey, if you feel the need to call a sprinkler system or the rain a "Hero", or The Universe "God", you go right ahead.
You forgot to address Myth's subsequent question, What difference does it make? Since your God does nothing for/to you or anyone els, of what significance is your God above pond water?
Obviously, the only difference between him and an atheist is his use of a label (he uses the label "god" for the universe/nature/reality). Why that supposedly makes him a theist, I'll never know.
You haven't really thought that analogy through very well. It actually shows up the HUGE flaw in your argument.
The subject is a human who is conscious and aware and made an intentional decision to put his own life at risk and act to save the lives of others. The description of 'Hero' would be appropriate.
If the sprinkler system was set off automatically by the smoke and fire and the people were saved, would you call the sprinkler system a "Hero"? No. It would be ridiculous and totally inappropriate. The sprinkler system is not alive and is not capable of making any conscious decisions or acting intentionally.
The same goes if it started raining and the fire was put out and the people were saved. You wouldn't call the rain a "Hero". That would be silly.
All your blather about whether other people perceived the man's actions as being worthy or not of being called a hero and whether that proves heroes exist or not is just a red herring and irrelevant nonsense. At least the man was alive and could make conscious decisions so he was at least capable of doing something to warrant being called a hero.
For something to be called "God" I would think that at least the bare minimum requirements would be for that something to have an overarching intelligence, be consciously aware, and be capable of acting with intent.
There is NO scientific evidence that the Universe or Reality itself is intelligent or consciously aware and capable of acting with intent. In fact all the evidence points to the opposite. Mysti might waffle on about the concept of a Universal Consciousness Field as if it is 'known science' but it's not. Not even close. It's just wishful thinking on his part to try to explain his experiences while meditating. Neuroscience already has a reasonable and rather mundane explanation for it, but that doesn't suit Mysti - perhaps because it wouldn't make him feel 'special'?
So to me, calling the Universe or Reality "God" is as a silly as calling a sprinkler system or the rain, a "Hero".
But hey, if you feel the need to call a sprinkler system or the rain a "Hero", or The Universe "God", you go right ahead.
Very well done. Yes, after discussion with this, it did seem to come down to Intelligence beyond blind natural forces. Of course that led to a discussion about human consciousness and animal consciousness and the possibility of the emergence of concioussness along with the evolution of bioforms. I recall then that the distinction between human and animal consciousness vanished and it all became part of the cosmic mind.
I then argued that for a cosmic mind to be 'God' rather than natural forces operating according to innate natural laws, (Aka 'reality' alias the 'natural material cosmos' of 'naturalist materialism') there needed to be some plan which It worked out beforehand and executed according to that plan.
That is what I would need evidence of before I agreed that the 'God' label could be pasted over what we already know we have 'reality'. If anyone can prove to a persuasive degree that such forward planning is the case, I'll apply the God - label myself.
You haven't really thought that analogy through very well. It actually shows up the HUGE flaw in your argument.
The subject is a human who is conscious and aware and made an intentional decision to put his own life at risk and act to save the lives of others. The description of 'Hero' would be appropriate.
If the sprinkler system was set off automatically by the smoke and fire and the people were saved, would you call the sprinkler system a "Hero"? No. It would be ridiculous and totally inappropriate. The sprinkler system is not alive and is not capable of making any conscious decisions or acting intentionally.
The same goes if it started raining and the fire was put out and the people were saved. You wouldn't call the rain a "Hero". That would be silly.
All your blather about whether other people perceived the man's actions as being worthy or not of being called a hero and whether that proves heroes exist or not is just a red herring and irrelevant nonsense. At least the man was alive and could make conscious decisions so he was at least capable of doing something to warrant being called a hero.
For something to be called "God" I would think that at least the bare minimum requirements would be for that something to have an overarching intelligence, be consciously aware, and be capable of acting with intent.
There is NO scientific evidence that the Universe or Reality itself is intelligent or consciously aware and capable of acting with intent. In fact all the evidence points to the opposite. Mysti might waffle on about the concept of a Universal Consciousness Field as if it is 'known science' but it's not. Not even close. It's just wishful thinking on his part to try to explain his experiences while meditating. Neuroscience already has a reasonable and rather mundane explanation for it, but that doesn't suit Mysti - perhaps because it wouldn't make him feel 'special'?
So to me, calling the Universe or Reality "God" is as a silly as calling a sprinkler system or the rain, a "Hero".
But hey, if you feel the need to call a sprinkler system or the rain a "Hero", or The Universe "God", you go right ahead.
There is a part you still fail to "get"...thus, why it seems like "blather" to you.
I "thought it through" just fine. You just don't agree with my view.
BTW...in case you weren't hip to it...there are lots of "rain" GODS: List of rain deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That you don't perceive "rain" as a "GOD" is just illustrative of my point that "GOD" perceptions are individual to people or part of traditions and cultures.
If one were to perceive a sprinkler system as a "GOD", that is THEIR perception.
Don't like that? Don't agree with that? Think it's "silly, ridiculous and totally inappropriate"? Oh, well!
As long as you insist that "GOD" be something...instead of a title that can be assigned to anything or anyone that is perceived as such...you will remain ignorant of the concept from the many various perspectives.
If an entity IS something...it necessarily has all the attributes and characteristics of it.
I perceive "GOD" as "ALL"...thus it has "all" the characteristics of anything and everything. That would include any attribute or characteristic.
THAT is the basis of MY (or possibly someone else) perception of "ALL" as "GOD", that qualifies it as "GOD".
It may not be YOUR perception...but, I submit, it is one of the most prolific perceptions.
On the other hand...the Atheist perception...is as much a "nothing" concept, as it is the "concept of nothing".
A person arguing the Atheist paradigm, knocking the Pantheist/Panentheist platform...is similar to a Little League team with a losing record slamming the Boston Red Sox for their lack of ability to "play the game". THAT is what is "silly, ridiculous and totally inappropriate".
There is a part you still fail to "get"...thus, why it seems like "blather" to you.
I "thought it through" just fine. You just don't agree with my view.
BTW...in case you weren't hip to it...there are lots of "rain" GODS: List of rain deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That you don't perceive "rain" as a "GOD" is just illustrative of my point that "GOD" perceptions are individual to people or part of traditions and cultures.
If one were to perceive a sprinkler system as a "GOD", that is THEIR perception.
Don't like that? Don't agree with that? Think it's "silly, ridiculous and totally inappropriate"? Oh, well!
As long as you insist that "GOD" be something...instead of a title that can be assigned to anything or anyone that is perceived as such...you will remain ignorant of the concept from the many various perspectives.
If an entity IS something...it necessarily has all the attributes and characteristics of it.
I perceive "GOD" as "ALL"...thus it has "all" the characteristics of anything and everything. That would include any attribute or characteristic.
THAT is the basis of MY (or possibly someone else) perception of "ALL" as "GOD", that qualifies it as "GOD".
It may not be YOUR perception...but, I submit, it is one of the most prolific perceptions.
On the other hand...the Atheist perception...is as much a "nothing" concept, as it is the "concept of nothing".
A person arguing the Atheist paradigm, knocking the Pantheist/Panentheist platform...is similar to a Little League team with a losing record slamming the Boston Red Sox for their lack of ability to "play the game". THAT is what is "silly, ridiculous and totally inappropriate".
I don't know why you keep trying to slam atheists as if it is a contest. We do believe in those things (universe/reality/nature).....we just don't give it the title "god." So how are we different?
I don't know why you keep trying to slam atheists as if it is a contest. We do believe in those things (universe/reality/nature).....we just don't give it the title "god." So how are we different?
Different by proclaiming those that do perceive it to merit the title "GOD" are "silly", "ridiculous", "totally inappropriate", "deluded", "playing semantic games", "believers in fairy tales", "ignorant", equated to believers in childish things like "leprechauns & unicorns", etc, etc, etc, etc.
You DO notice that is what is being done, don't you?
Quit slamming, mocking, and insulting the differing perceptions of "GOD"...that the perception in no way harms or encroaches upon you in any way other than bias headtrips about it...even actually straight-up declaring "THE PROBLEM ISN'T US, IT'S THEM!!!"...and it won't be a "contest".
For something to be called "God" I would think that at least the bare minimum requirements would be for that something to have an overarching intelligence, be consciously aware, and be capable of acting with intent.
There is NO scientific evidence that the Universe or Reality itself is intelligent or consciously aware and capable of acting with intent. In fact all the evidence points to the opposite. Mysti might waffle on about the concept of a Universal Consciousness Field as if it is 'known science' but it's not. Not even close. It's just wishful thinking on his part to try to explain his experiences while meditating. Neuroscience already has a reasonable and rather mundane explanation for it, but that doesn't suit Mysti - perhaps because it wouldn't make him feel 'special'? So to me, calling the Universe or Reality "God" is as a silly as calling a sprinkler system or the rain, a "Hero".
But hey, if you feel the need to call a sprinkler system or the rain a "Hero", or The Universe "God", you go right ahead.
Why did it take you so long to assert what truly bothers you and Arq and the others. You don't BELIEVE that the universe is conscious and you don't BELIEVE there is any reason to believe it is so. This is always the hangup . . . consciousness. There are plenty of reasons to believe it . . . you just don't think so.
Consciousness is a non-material and currently not measurable phenomenon that is personally experienced directly. Consciousness cannot be cavalierly treated as any of the other mundane material attributes of reality. If you know (as so many of you claim to) what we DO have reason to believe consciousness is as a material component within reality . . . what is it and how do we measure it currently? If you do NOT know . . . you have no basis for your assertion that our reality is NOT conscious . . . because unlike all your other nonsense consciousness exists and is evaluated only by another consciousness. You are free to not BELIEVE it . . . but NO BASIS for denying that there are reasons to BELIEVE it.
Consciousness remains an undefinable and currently unmeasurable component of reality. Direct experience of it and direct testing of its presence using our own consciousness is the only way we KNOW it exists. The composition fallacy fails because it is NOT a defined aspect measurable with current technology . . . and therefore cannot be bounded except by your preference. There is reason to believe (our conscious experience of it) and no reason not to believe. Consciousness literally defines subjectivity and cannot be divorced from it. If you experience God as a sprinkler system . . . more power to you.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 11-30-2013 at 03:45 PM..
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.
