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.
Your endorsement of MysticPhD's statement that "God is existence and existence is God" (the exact quote was actually "Everything that exists is evidence of God because God IS everything that exists" comes across-- as Arequippa said in another posting in this thread --as simply nature with a different label slapped on it. Why affix or interject the word "God" into it or onto it at all?
And I'm not wholly sure or clear about your own (or MysticPhD's own) definition of what constitutes what you or him call "God" in all its nuances of meaning.
...
You state that I should state my understanding of the universe on what I believe is (not what I believe it is not). The fact is that, up to this point at which I am typing all this, I don't have (or don't necessarily have) fixed beliefs about "what the universe is", beyond saying, at the most basic level, that[indent]"The universe exists (i.e., existence itself exists)."
I believe these two comments are related, and something that worth your digging into. I say this from experience that is as first-hand as anyone else's experience can be. Working to craft a more comprehensive, affirmed worldview will help you understand that for which you've expressed so much frustration in this thread. I do believe one key to that is, at the very least, to accept the idea that you can remain soundly evidence-based and yet still conceptualize life and existence in a manner different from dogs and apes and pigs. I highly recommend you read Building Your Own Theology by Richard S. Gilbert.
Your endorsement of MysticPhD's statement that "God is existence and existence is God" (the exact quote was actually "Everything that exists is evidence of God because God IS everything that exists" comes across-- as Arequippa said in another posting in this thread --as simply nature with a different label slapped on it. Why affix or interject the word "God" into it or onto it at all? And I'm not wholly sure or clear about your own (or MysticPhD's own) definition of what constitutes what you or him call "God" in all its nuances of meaning. Does or does not this God/universe (which is said to be one and the same thing by both of you) have a "mind" or rather is it "mindless" (having no mind at all)? And exactly how would you know this one way of the another and establish such an assertion as fact one way or the other (i.e., that God/the universe is a mind or is not a mind)?
As for my own views: You state that I should state my understanding of the universe on what I believe is (not what I believe it is not). The fact is that, up to this point at which I am typing all this, I don't have (or don't necessarily have) fixed beliefs about "what the universe is", beyond saying, at the most basic level, that
"The universe exists (i.e., existence itself exists)."
for I have no other credible basis for assigning any agency or mindfulness or mission or meaning or purpose to it or on it that I can credibly and convincingly prove to the satisfaction of all other discerning persons and parties as well as to myself. And I don't know why it is existent rather than not existent (i.e., the question which asks "Why is there something rather than nothing?") and any assertion about "why" would necessarily assert "agency" or "mind" to existence, which I don't really know to be true or false. I am not closed to there being "agency" or "mind" inherent in the nature of the universe or existence but just simply can't prove it in any way but only merely specualte about it. That is, I don't take a hard atheistic stance which asserts that "There is no mind-based nature but only a mindless nature which we call 'the universe' or 'the cosmos' or simply 'existence'"; I simply have no acceptable basis for asserting one way or the other, so therefore I don't presently take it upon myself to actively embrace the concept of "mindfulness" or "agency" to existence but also don't outright reject it. I just simply say "Prove it to the satisfaction of all discerning persons and parties." In contrast, ALL of us would be in 100% agreement that we all need food, water, oxygen, and sleep (among other things) in order to live; for this, there is no argument that anyone would bring up (these are UNDENIABLE realities for all of us). And yet we DON"T all agree or concur that, for instance, the universe or existence is built on a mind or that it has an implicit purpose or mission inherent in it . . . and even if any of us (including myself) personally felt in our heart of hearts that it did, we have no real way to establish this as being so to the concurrence and agreement of all discerning persons and parties (and we will often find that we even have different definitions in the first place for what would constitute "agency", "mind", "God", et al.
So this leaves me to essentially take no more than a minimalist approach by only stating that "The universe or the cosmos exists and it functions as it does", along with "The universe does obviously have an inherent orderliness to it (which we often call "design" but I just simply call it "orderliness" or "the natural order", which is to say that it is apparently governed by prevailing physical laws and constants . . . though we may not fully know of or understand ALL of them thus far and we may, at times in the future, feel compelled to alter our stated understandings of the workabilty of said laws and constants. I do not know if this apparent "design" is an "intelligent design" or not (for I have no real way of proving the supposed "intelligence being or beings" allegedly behind it all but only know that the universe or existence is there). What more can we state about the universe beyond this that would be any more than mere conjecture and mere supposition without true provable evidentiary foundation (except "evidences" which, in the end, cannot be shown to be any more than the product of our own minds' speculations)? For me to say more about existence than that would be "biting off more than I can chew" (and I feel not just I but, for ALL of us, it would be "biting off more than WE can chew") . . . or at least up to this present point in time. Perhaps what we know with certitude or reasonable certitude could change in the future. Who knows what we may come to know (i.e., epistemologically validate and know) in oncoming times?
I hope I've conveyed that I try to be careful in what I say (to not state more than I feel can be credibly established) or else I risk coming across as being "full of myself" and "intellectually conceited" in conveying such a secure confidence in such assertions of "knowledge" on my part. Who does it really impress for any one of us to claim to "know" that which can't be established as truly discernable to all discerning persons and parties who are truly guided by true intellectual honesty and who have sound faculties (as differs from assertions by any one of us that are undeniably true in the minds of ALL of us, such as the assertion that we, as humans, ALL need food, water, oxygen, and sleep in order to remain alive)?
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
that was no explanation. it was the familiar use of unknowns and appeal to what makes sense to human ways of thinking to try to argue that an intelligent creative being has to be the only explanation. In the absense of any sound and valid evidence for any such intelligent creative being, appeal to unknowns is non -logical, invalid and no evidence of anything substantial.
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
What a dismal rigmarole. We are already Hip to the argument although you are not.
Let me try One last time (again). I shall put aside the self -serving selection of a particular definition from Websters while ignoring all the others, and claiming the dictionary supports your claim, because i understand your point and Mystic phd's '"God" is intelligent nature.
(1) The case for intelligent nature has not been plausibly demonstrated. Therefore "God" is not appropriate - "Nature" is.
(2) until nature is shown to be intelligent, we are not interested in this misuse of "God" nor the application of the term to unthinking nature, natural processes, valued pursuits or honoured leaders. They are irrelevant to the forum.
(3) we are only interested in the Cosmic cretor "God" in preventing it being misappropriated as a jump -off point to one of the personal giods, which are really the only ones, and their religions, authority and interference in society that concerns us.
I hope you finally get 'Hip' to this, but if not - as i have said before - it doesn't matter what you think or post. It is irrelevant.
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
With your posting, you've informed me and other readers of nothing of substance really to enable me to understand where precisely your thinking lies and where you are coming from. Take it upon yourself to spell out your case in detail by providing explanations and definitions . . . just like I often take it upon myself to type out verbose and detailed postings to give others actual meat and substance to work with. Spell out what YOU YOURSELF precisely and in detail mean when you say "God", "nature", "universe", "existence", "agency", et al. I can't read your mind to know how and what YOU precisely mean these words to imply. Explain how you deem it to not really be "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD. In detail, explain precisely HOW what has been stated by myself "is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed", as you have stated in your posting. And so, by what you said, is this posting here saying that you are in wholesale agreement with the statement of both bUU and MysticPhD that “"Everything that exists is evidence of God because God IS everything that exists”? If yes, say so. If not, explain precisely and in detail how you differ from their assertion.
And state HOW you think that you truly know the assertions you make that you claim to be true ARE, in fact, true . . . as contrasting with my rather bare and minimalist claims in my posting that you quoted. I am careful to not state more than I deem can be backed up by acceptable evidences and proofs. Where exactly does your information come from that makes you feel justified and confident to make the assertions of "truth" that you take it upon youself to make and expect everyone to agree upon and accept? Spell it out or else we (I) have nothing to work with except to view your posting as a mere expression of consternation and venting (which you are, of course, entitled to do).
What a dismal rigmarole. We are already Hip to the argument although you are not.
Let me try One last time (again). I shall put aside the self -serving selection of a particular definition from Websters while ignoring all the others, and claiming the dictionary supports your claim, because i understand your point and Mystic phd's '"God" is intelligent nature.
(1) The case for intelligent nature has not been plausibly demonstrated. Therefore "God" is not appropriate - "Nature" is.
(2) until nature is shown to be intelligent, we are not interested in this misuse of "God" nor the application of the term to unthinking nature, natural processes, valued pursuits or honoured leaders. They are irrelevant to the forum.
(3) we are only interested in the Cosmic cretor "God" in preventing it being misappropriated as a jump -off point to one of the personal giods, which are really the only ones, and their religions, authority and interference in society that concerns us.
I hope you finally get 'Hip' to this, but if not - as i have said before - it doesn't matter what you think or post. It is irrelevant.
Translation: I STILL insist on cherry-picking and redacting definitions instead of accepting all of the full and complete definition of those words...because if I don't it is blasphemy against my Atheist Religion worship of NOGODAH.
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
Taking the gist of what I see in a cross-section of your postings in this thread (and maybe some outside this thread, if I remember correctly?), you appear to, on the one hand, be critical of the theistic worldview (such as in the following posting):
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
and then, on the other hand, to be critical of the non-theistic or atheistic worldview (such as in the following posting where you were responding to Arach Angle):
HaHaHa!
I figured if the Fundie Religious can use it...I want that too!
You just declare it to be "holy" or "sacred", point out where it is supported by a line or two from some book that was written back when the idea of a fun day was watching gladiators fight to the death, or say that some Supreme Being inspired you...and it's a wrap!
We even use the stereotype, "That's Gospel", to represent ultimate truth!
Well, I'm gonna bypass the "red tape"...and just declare whatever I say fact as a given.
I actually feel really good about this...think of how simple things will be for me now that I have that established.
and then those postings which seem somewhat ambiguous as to your worldview or allegiances such as the following (which I’m not clear if this is critiquing the non-theistic or atheistic worldview or not):
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
and now this posting which I am responding to here, which addresses me in a rather aggressive way (though my posting that you were responding to was actually addressed to bUU’s postings to me):
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
and then your response to Arequippa's response to your above-seen response to my own posting, in which you stated:
Translation: I STILL insist on cherry-picking and redacting definitions instead of accepting all of the full and complete definition of those words...because if I don't it is blasphemy against my Atheist Religion worship of NOGODAH.
The overarching point is that I can’t quite tell if you are a full-blown theist or else somewhat of a pantheist or pantheist or else a non-theist/atheist or else you seem to straddle the boundaries of ALL of them at different times. On the one hand, you seemingly advance and defend the theistic (or pantheistic or pantheist) viewpoint-- even strenuously so --and then, on the other hand, you seem to be critical of their worldview and even somewhat talk like a non-theist. Is that at-times criticalness of their worldview indicative that you have some non-theistic or atheistic tendencies or not? Or are you rather more of a neutral party or outsider who can see merit and demerit in any of these worldviews at different times or in different contexts? You ARE, of course, entitled to subscribe to whatever views suit you (I don't control your brain nor does anyone else). I just can’t quite seem to pin a label on you that indicates what you would call yourself if asked to precisely and in detail define your own theological perspective and outlook (i.e., your true allegiances). What, in fact, is it?
Taking the gist of what I see in a cross-section of your postings in this thread (and maybe some outside this thread, if I remember correctly?), you appear to, on the one hand, be critical of the theistic worldview (such as in the following posting):
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
and then, on the other hand, to be critical of the non-theistic or atheistic worldview (such as in the following posting where you were responding to Arach Angle):
HaHaHa!
I figured if the Fundie Religious can use it...I want that too!
You just declare it to be "holy" or "sacred", point out where it is supported by a line or two from some book that was written back when the idea of a fun day was watching gladiators fight to the death, or say that some Supreme Being inspired you...and it's a wrap!
We even use the stereotype, "That's Gospel", to represent ultimate truth!
Well, I'm gonna bypass the "red tape"...and just declare whatever I say fact as a given.
I actually feel really good about this...think of how simple things will be for me now that I have that established.
and then those postings which seem somewhat ambiguous as to your worldview or allegiances such as the following (which I’m not clear if this is critiquing the non-theistic or atheistic worldview or not):
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
and now this posting which I am responding to here, which addresses me in a rather aggressive way (though my posting that you were responding to was actually addressed to bUU’s postings to me):
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
The overarching point is that I can’t quite tell if you are a full-blown theist or else somewhat of a pantheist or pantheist or else a non-theist/atheist or else you seem to straddle the boundaries of ALL of them at different times. On the one hand, you seemingly advance and defend the theistic (or pantheistic or pantheist) viewpoint and then, on the other hand, you seem to be critical of their worldview and even somewhat talk like a non-theist. Is that at-times criticalness of their worldview indicative that you have some non-theistic or atheistic tendencies or not? Or are you rather more of a neutral party or outsider who can see merit and demerit in any of these worldviews at different times or in different contexts? You ARE, of course, entitled to subscribe to whatever views suit you (I don't control your brain nor does anyone else). I just can’t quite seem to pin a label on you that indicates what you would call yourself if asked to precisely and in detail define your own theological perspective and outlook (i.e., your true allegiances). What, in fact, is it?
I think Golden just likes to have fun with theists and atheists.
Taking the gist of what I see in a cross-section of your postings in this thread (and maybe some outside this thread, if I remember correctly?), you appear to, on the one hand, be critical of the theistic worldview (such as in the following posting):
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
and then, on the other hand, to be critical of the non-theistic or atheistic worldview (such as in the following posting where you were responding to Arach Angle):
HaHaHa!
I figured if the Fundie Religious can use it...I want that too!
You just declare it to be "holy" or "sacred", point out where it is supported by a line or two from some book that was written back when the idea of a fun day was watching gladiators fight to the death, or say that some Supreme Being inspired you...and it's a wrap!
We even use the stereotype, "That's Gospel", to represent ultimate truth!
Well, I'm gonna bypass the "red tape"...and just declare whatever I say fact as a given.
I actually feel really good about this...think of how simple things will be for me now that I have that established.
and then those postings which seem somewhat ambiguous as to your worldview or allegiances such as the following (which I’m not clear if this is critiquing the non-theistic or atheistic worldview or not):
There are those that perceive God as ALL THAT EXISTS. So, anything that exists is evidence of God.
If ALL isn't God relative to us, what could possibly be? ALL is as "Godly" as it gets.
That YOU don't perceive ALL THERE IS as God is inconsequential. As long as anyone does...that's all it takes.
Just like if anyone perceives you as a "friend"...even if it is only one person...then you are a friend....aaaaaaand, friends exist.
That's how it works. That you don't like it, or can't comprehend the concept, notwithstanding.
and now this posting which I am responding to here, which addresses me in a rather aggressive way (though my posting that you were responding to was actually addressed to bUU’s postings to me):
I see this all the time...the accusation of "relabeling" or "renaming" of "things that already have names", to be called GOD.
It is always either actual or wilful ignorance.
Here is how the ignorant prove to themselves where they are messing up: Check out the etymology of the words "God", "Nature", and "Universe"...study it REAL good.
NOW...with that knowledge...dig on which way the "relabeling/renaming" went. "GOD" was what was relabeled/renamed! Get hip to it reeeeeeeal good.
Finally...quit with the ignorant argument that is actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is claimed.
The overarching point is that I can’t quite tell if you are a full-blown theist or else somewhat of a pantheist or pantheist or else a non-theist/atheist or else you seem to straddle the boundaries of ALL of them at different times. On the one hand, you seemingly advance and defend the theistic (or pantheistic or pantheist) viewpoint and then, on the other hand, you seem to be critical of their worldview and even somewhat talk like a non-theist. Is that at-times criticalness of their worldview indicative that you have some non-theistic or atheistic tendencies or not? Or are you rather more of a neutral party or outsider who can see merit and demerit in any of these worldviews at different times or in different contexts? You ARE, of course, entitled to subscribe to whatever views suit you (I don't control your brain nor does anyone else). I just can’t quite seem to pin a label on you that indicates what you would call yourself if asked to precisely and in detail define your own theological perspective and outlook (i.e., your true allegiances). What, in fact, is it?
I'm a Gnostic Theist. Knowing God exists is my game, and Pantheism is the name.
GOD IS ALL...that is my perception of God. It is reasonable and logical definitively. It is objectively known that ALL exists...thus GOD objectively exists. That's a wrap. The only argument against it is Pure (Metaphysical) Solipsism...other than that it cannot be logically contested.
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.
We are already Hip to the argument although you are not.
