Please define the word God in your own words

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Here is the thing, there are 100s of people who quote my way and it works. You do not need to put YOUR text inside MY quote. That just looks like you are putting your words in my mouth. I know 8 year olds doing it right. I am unsure why you can not. This is how adults debate.

Keep your words out of my mouth, thanks. This is how adults debate. Get used to it.

And no I do not "interrupt paragraphs". I quote JUST enough of what you said for you to be able to go back.... if you need to.... to your original post and see what I am replying to. It is not my fault if you can not remember your own words and points. This is how adults debate.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

i agree with that definition of a God. Paragaph space, but i do not agree with the "no evidence" assessment

You not agreeing with it will not magically make evidence appear. The simple fact is there has been NO evidence, arguments, data or reasoning presented to lend credibility to the claim that a non-human intelligent and intentional agency is the explanation for our existence.

If you disagree with that, then rather than merely state your disagreement..... explain the basis for it. This is how adults debate.

If you disagree with it then you must think there ARE some arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that a non-human intelligent and intentional agency is the explanation for our existence. So by all means present it! This is how adults debate.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

I gave you evidence.

Errrrr no. You did not. Anywhere. Ever. All you did was moan that the abscence of evidence was not evidence, and then declared.... not evidenced, declared..... that Evolution implies agency.

You do know the difference between Assertion and Evidence right? You did the former. Not the latter. At all. Even a little bit.

[bulmabriefs144]

Here's the thing. Which, becauase i put you on my ignore list, I have no idea how you responded but whatever.

We have physical reality, mental reality, and ultimate reality.

"But bulma, you have no proof."

Proof isnt reserved for mathematics or science stuff. If this were the only evidence that counted, there were scientists back technically in the time of Archimedes. No, ppl did not come up with science only recently. It has in fact been around for a long time. It was stifled by superstition.

But now threre is another problem with science. It has actually become choked by a review board that decides whether new ideas are "acceptable" or not. You know the back to the future day? It was basically a testament to where science could have gotten to but didnt even come close. In 1982, they were coming out with all new inventions, computers, CDs, etc. It was not too much of a stretch to believe that in about twenty or thirty years, given the rate of change between 1800s and 1920 and 1950 and 1980, by this point, we had gone from living out on frontiers to towns with electricity, to diners to widespread use of technology, it seemed reasonable that by this point we would have clean energy, and enough of a grasp of it to use it for extremely productive uses like removing road congestion by developing antigrav. Nope, 30 years pass, and besides cellphone use, cancer risk is about the only thing that has raised. Industry sold us out by pushing gas and oil, new product that do exist are not tested for safety, hence above cancer risk. Same for medicine, we now have a medicine system that basically accepts no new ideas, which has been treating people with cancer using the same procedure for almost 20 years now, despite the fact that radiation and chemo have very low chances of success, and by now we should have beaten it. Rather, cancer went from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5! Which is why i'm talking about cancer. We make big claims about how science tests theories, and discards bad ones. But science is stuck because there is a very unscientific review board setting a sort of dogma. Technology and medicine are subsets of science, and they are currently in the process of poisoning our food. By now, we should have basically Tomorrowland technology. Clean air, clean energy, clean health, and limitless possibility. We dont, and it is because we have allowed someone else to do our thinking for us. To decide whats possible.

That is, even if I were to give you unassailable proof of the existence of God, you would categorically reject it because the idea flies in the face of scientific evidence. Or rather, science simply has no evidence for it. You know what? Science is limited. And thgere are more types of evidence than just math formulas.

Religion uses a different standard for evidence than science. And no it isnt, "look in the bible and accept it whole". It uses the idea of philosophy, it uses science too (just not the formulas because they are gibberish), it uses the observation of nature. It looks at observed phenomena in the universe and attempts to draw a moral conclusion from it. Sound familiar? It should. Besides moral and spiritual, this is science. God said in the Bible, " behold, I make everything new." Scientists in the 80s believed in God, they believed in using technology for the good of humanity, and that health care was to keep people healthy. This is why we had such advances. Now we dont, because science is stuck in theory mode and new advances are on hold while they try to prove dogma that is nonsense. Its like some web article said, as long as the climate change models are based on bogus science these hurricane things wont have accurate projections (we had no idea where matthew was gonna go). And as long as we believe something can be created by nobody, we are patently at odds with people working on new technology (after all, if people create new things, they start realizing that if something new happens, you have to make it).

I'm certain you guys saw the thing i wrote about pyramids being built top to bottom and half the people there said, "no way thats impossible". Thats a limit in your thinking, not mine. What is God? New Creation, for the good of all. We have some notion of God as some stuck in the past deity. But no, the only time God resists new things is when it ceases to be for the good of all. Technology that puts humans at risk. Things that defile nature. Look at the bible again, its a story of tradition, yes. And these traditions show god's faithfulness, but it is also about people making their own traditions. Jesus causing trouble in the markets, a new religion that ignores the kosher laws, new systems in place, etc. There was nothing, now there is nature. People were living naked and cold, now we wear clothes and have all kinds of technology and culture. If this is not the work of God, i dunno what would prove it to you. Probably nothing. And yes, i will probably give a new definition another time you ask. " God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But what is the same is not the rigidity of God, but God's openness. Fluidity. God will always change from day to day, and this is precisely what is always the same. New Creation (for the good of all). We should have hoverboards. Not those stupid scooters they called hoverboards.

My proof? Of the physical, mental, ultimate reality? Physical reality is the world we can see, touch, etc. Duh. Mental is the world we can think of, like that of science and math. Also obvious. Ultimate reality is the world of creation, of making new things. We are not living in the world of horse drawn carriages anymore. This is because reality has changed on a physical level to what was in our hearts.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Here's the thing. Which, becauase i put you on my ignore list, I have no idea how you responded but whatever.

Clearly I am not on your ignore list if you are replying to me. Especially given you purposely started your post with the same words as my post. More dishonesty from you I guess.

Your rhetoric of "We have physical reality, mental reality, and ultimate reality." is just unsubstantiated nonsense. There appears to only be one reality, and if you want to evidence others then merely asserting their existence is not the way to go about it.

The rest of your post appears to be a total tangent moaning about what science "could have been" and imagining some conspiracy to stifle it or decide what is "acceptable" or not. There is no such board that I am aware of. What is "acceptable" in science is what is substantiated. Little more than that. That you want to go on a rant about how much you hate science is not going to prove "antigrav" should exist or other cancer treatments should have been found by now.

And the things you moan about like "clean energy" is not the fault of science. It is the fault of politics and funding.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

That is, even if I were to give you unassailable proof of the existence of God, you would categorically reject it because the idea flies in the face of scientific evidence.

Not buying that cop out canard at all. I see it too often to fall for it now, and I doubt anyone else will either. It is the same old "I would give you evidence, but you would just reject" it nonsense. Basically you have no evidence to give for your positions, so you establish some cop out narrative blaming me, rather than yourself, for that failing.

Go over ALL my posts for example on this forum. 100s of posts in which I defend my positions often and robustly. And not once will you EVER see me cop out my saying "Well I would argue my position, but you would just not accept it.

It is false. It is dishonest. It is a canard. It is a trick. And I doubt anyone is buying it except possibly you yourself.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Religion uses a different standard for evidence than science.

The only "standard of evidence" I am seeing from you is called "Assert and repeat". If that is your "different standard" you can keep it.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

And as long as we believe something can be created by nobody

By "we" you mean you right? Because you speak for no one but yourself. You certainly are not speaking for me.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

I'm certain you guys saw the thing i wrote about pyramids being built top to bottom and half the people there said, "no way thats impossible".

Yeah I saw it, I asked a VERY simple question about your assertions there, and you ran away and ignored the question. I simply do not buy your claims because the evidence you gave for those claims were nonsense. You appeared to think carbon dating tells you when a rock was placed in a structure. So I asked a SIMPLY question to you about what you meant by dating and you ran for the hills. That's a limit in your thinking, not mine.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

What is God? New Creation, for the good of all.

Cute how you definition hop when it suits you. We already agreed on a definition, it failed you, now you are inventing a new one to use instead.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

People were living naked and cold, now we wear clothes and have all kinds of technology and culture. If this is not the work of God, i dunno what would prove it to you.

Errrrrr I dunno what would prove that to me either given the things you list appear to be the work of PEOPLE, not gods. But by all means try.

[Katiethegreat]

Christian God is Akin to science,concerned with pushing back archaic night/darkness with the light,in sciences case with the light of reason.

They both have a loathe of everything sourced from the darkness the primitive horns,the irrational,the chaotic,feminine yin principles.

They both operate heavily on masculine yang principles,esp science which won't accept any ancient feminine principles like intuition,emotion,chaos,the irrational,or anything like that.both are very much about control and rigidness.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by AFP

The word God carries a lot of baggage for many people and is used frequently on this forum.

I have no interest in having a scholarly discussion on this topic but would like to know how the various members of this forum define the word "God".

I will start I use that word as a metaphor for the universe.

Simple--\\//

WORD=JESUS

[Arach Angle]

"god", who knows. We can only list traits of the universe we know and describe those events around us to the best of our ability. People's personal agenda get in the way of an honest discussion. anti-religion mentals and religious mentals muck up the place and the rest of us slip on the slime.