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.
Ok.So you have nothing to give to meet the simple request that you give some sound support to 'everything' being forward -planning intelligent, without which I will not call it (God) and neither, honestly, can you.
The rest of the post requires no further comment.
I love it here.
AGAIN: Everything (God) is certainly intelligent and forward-planning, as it is objectively known that there are intelligent and forward-planning components that are part of the collective Everything (God)...and Everything (God) would necessarily have any and all attributes that exist.
Though it is not by this that the "God" quality of Everything manifests. It is through the conscious perception that it is God by which Everything manifests as God.
I just want to know if my views on a deity is more agnostic or atheistic in essence.
I don't believe in a god. I think his existence is highly unlikely. But I can't say that I "know" that deities doesn't exist. I have no knowledge on that. However, the gods that humans have written about (Abrahamic, Hindu, Sikh) definitely don't exist. I believe that we made them up the same way we made up fairies, elves and santa. With that being said, I can't say that a deistic god is certainly nonexistent.
So what do these views make me within the agnostic-atheist scale?
Relative atheist - agnostic deist. This is how I identify.
AGAIN: Everything (God) is certainly intelligent and forward-planning, as it is objectively known that there are intelligent and forward-planning components that are part of the collective Everything (God)...and Everything (God) would necessarily have any and all attributes that exist.
Though it is not by this that the "God" quality of Everything manifests. It is through the conscious perception that it is God by which Everything manifests as God.
Nice try. Checkout machines are components of supermarkets but we do not call a supermarket a checkout machine. The only intelligent and forward -planning components known to exist are us. Everything else is reacting to the environment. Unless you can show (not just claim) that all those other elements are planning ahead and executing that plan, never mind as a cohesive entity, then Everything is not intelligent and forward -planing and does not merit being called God by you or by me.
Relative atheist - agnostic deist. This is how I identify.
That being that you don't know whether a god exists or not and tend not to credit that it does and, if so, is not a hands -on micromanager of events here on earth? Something like that?
Nice try. Checkout machines are components of supermarkets but we do not call a supermarket a checkout machine. The only intelligent and forward -planning components known to exist are us. Everything else is reacting to the environment. Unless you can show (not just claim) that all those other elements are planning ahead and executing that plan, never mind as a cohesive entity, then Everything is not intelligent and forward -planing and does not merit being called God by you or by me.
Because of the checkout machine...a general attribute of "The Supermarket" is that you can checkout things. But this is irrelevant.
Read my #80 again.
ALL THE MATTER /ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED is in its present state by whatever way it got that way. The totality of everything has been, is, and will be necessairly sourced by it and throught It.
SO: I perceive ALL as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...that's definitively GOD...and I assign that title to it. Thus GOD exists.
Atheism and Agnosticism are, of course, destroyed by that...cuz "God Exists", and it can be objectively known.
There ya go!
Because of the checkout machine...a general attribute of "The Supermarket" is that you can checkout things. But this is irrelevant.
Read my #80 again.
ALL THE MATTER /ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED is in its present state by whatever way it got that way. The totality of everything has been, is, and will be necessairly sourced by it and throught It.
SO: I perceive ALL as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...that's definitively GOD...and I assign that title to it. Thus GOD exists.
Atheism and Agnosticism are, of course, destroyed by that...cuz "God Exists", and it can be objectively known.
There ya go!
That's utter gibberish, assuming it's sincere rather than facetious. It's such gibberish it requires no rebuttal, but since mordant does so well debunking such ridiculous claims, I'll leave it to him...
That's utter gibberish, assuming it's sincere rather than facetious. It's such gibberish it requires no rebuttal, but since mordant does so well debunking such ridiculous claims, I'll leave it to him...
Go ahead...rebut...I wanna see it
Stick with facts and logic.
Because of the checkout machine...a general attribute of "The Supermarket" is that you can checkout things. But this is irrelevant.
Read my #80 again.
ALL THE MATTER /ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED is in its present state by whatever way it got that way. The totality of everything has been, is, and will be necessairly sourced by it and throught It.
SO: I perceive ALL as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...that's definitively GOD...and I assign that title to it. Thus GOD exists.
Atheism and Agnosticism are, of course, destroyed by that...cuz "God Exists", and it can be objectively known.
There ya go!
You can do better than that. The "It" you mention is better called "Nature" than (God) [the way I recall you put it] and the difference for me at least is that nature is not intelligent in planning ahead an executing that plan. That is the characteristic that makes It (God), not being the 'source' of all things.
You agreed it had to be intelligent/forward -planning and that is something you need to validate as credible fact before I (and as I said, logically, you too) will see calling Everything (God) as anything other than a rhetorical trick intended to get, without producing anything other than semantic fiddling and definition -shopping, to where you want to get to: "Atheism and Agnosticism are, of course, destroyed by that...cuz "God Exists",.
For me, and I would bet on a good many others, not putting the intent and will as THE characteristic that makes for a god rather than a material/natural existence without one, absurd (1). Since you have said (despite denying it a few posts ago and saying I could Link all I liked) that (God) is intelligent and forward -planning, that is what you have to show to be credible. And the fact that you keep trying to evade, misdirect and sideline that shows that you know that you can't.
(1) as absurd, to use your President analogy as saying that what makes for a president is being in the White House.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-07-2016 at 11:48 PM..
You can do better than that. The "It" you mention is better called "Nature" than (God) [the way I recall you put it] and the difference for me at least is that nature is not intelligent in planning ahead an executing that plan. That is the characteristic that makes It (God), not being the 'source' of all things.
You agreed it had to be intelligent/forward -planning and that is something you need to validate as credible fact before I (and as I said, logically, you too) will see calling Everything (God) as anything other than a rhetorical trick intended to get, without producing anything other than semantic fiddling and definition -shopping, to where you want to get to: "Atheism and Agnosticism are, of course, destroyed by that...cuz "God Exists",.
For me, and I would bet on a good many others, not putting the intent and will as THE characteristic that makes for a god rather than a material/natural existence without one, absurd (1). Since you have said (despite denying it a few posts ago and saying I could Link all I liked) that (God) is intelligent and forward -planning, that is what you have to show to be credible. And the fact that you keep trying to evade, misdirect and sideline that shows that you know that you can't.
(1) as absurd, to use your President analogy as saying that what makes for a president is being in the White House.
You are wrong man. Read #80 again...that is from YEARS ago.
I said "God is a title...and God is what anyone perceives to be God and assigns that title to it." Even a rock outcropping!!
You asked if I thought "ALL/EVERYTHING" had attributes of intelligence and forward-planning...I said it did, to the extent that the intelligent and forward-planning entities that comprise it have those attributes. That seemed pretty clear to me. What part of that don't you understand?
I have always argued that NOBODY gets to dictate what God MUST be to be perceived as God.
I know you don't like it...but the fact remains, G-O-D is not definitively limited to Religious Deities. You can limit YOUR perception to that...that's all well and good IMO...but you can't dictate anyone else has to.
There is no question, and it is not even debateable, that "G-O-D" is defined as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...the perceptions of which, are subjective. Do you need the proof again?
So, logically...if someone has a perception that subjectively comports with those known definitions of GOD, it is reasonable that they assign that title to it. This then makes that "God", to THEM. That it isn't subjectively God to YOU is meaningless to that others perception.
For some reason this bothers you...because it is not how you think it should be, since that's not how you prefer it.
This attitude is Pedigree bias and prejudice...no different than bias and prejudice toward any other difference.
It seems to be a Fundie mandate...to criticize and bash those that have differing ways or views they don't agree with. What's up with that?
Because of the checkout machine...a general attribute of "The Supermarket" is that you can checkout things. But this is irrelevant.
Read my #80 again.
ALL THE MATTER /ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED is in its present state by whatever way it got that way. The totality of everything has been, is, and will be necessairly sourced by it and throught It.
SO: I perceive ALL as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...that's definitively GOD...and I assign that title to it. Thus GOD exists.
Atheism and Agnosticism are, of course, destroyed by that...cuz "God Exists", and it can be objectively known.
There ya go!
I think the issue at hand here is....why do you choose to apply this label or title of god to something we are quite certain has a label already?
Let me explain the relevance here. Typical god-beliefs are an attempt to explain our origins to the extent which is just beyond our knowledge. Whether that is supernatural or natural explanations, a thinking and planning entity, or some sort of multiverse theory with a whole lot of new physics potentially at play; the reason is because most or many people prefer to have a method to rationalise the irrational....existence. I share that same curiosity of origins but have seen only one reliable method of getting to the bottom of complicated mysteries...the scientific method.
So the question here is essentially....if you have a genuine desire or curiosity to rationalise the irrational....how does labeling everything as god help that cause? And if you agree that it doesn't help that cause....what purpose does it serve to you?
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.
