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.
You are wrong...or it may just be beyond you.
Learn the full and complete definition of the word at issue...you obviously don't know it.
Once you educate yourself you may come to a more accurate understanding.
I am glad to help ya in any way I can...just let me know.
I guess you simply don't realize how silly you look arguing that it's not semantics and then turning right around and arguing that it depends on how we define God . Perhaps you do not understand what semantics means?
LOL.Have a nice day . If you ever feel up to tackling my question head on instead of hiding behind asking a question in reply as a dodge , you let me know . But for now the student is just as lousy as the teacher .
But I have another question. Perhaps you will be able to answer this one at least . Do you really think the theists the atheists debate believe in the type you and Mystic espouse? Or do you not grasp the God the Christians argue for ?
Last edited by wallflash; 03-07-2016 at 08:02 AM..
I guess you simply don't realize how silly you look arguing that it's not semantics and then turning right around and arguing that it depends on how we define God . Perhaps you do not understand what semantics means?
LOL.Have a nice day . If you ever feel up to tackling my question head on instead of hiding behind asking a question in reply as a dodge , you let me know . But for now the student is just as lousy as the teacher .
But I have another question. Perhaps you will be able to answer this one at least . Do you really think the theists the atheists debate believe in the type you and Mystic espouse? Or do you not grasp the God the Christians argue for ?
No. It is YOU arguing about how YOU, et al, define GOD. And arguing that we should all limit the definition to your abbreviated understanding.
I am not using MY definition...or YOUR definition...I am using THE definition.
Based on THE definition...GOD objectively exists. That's a fact.
If you want to argue that "Biblegod" (Jehovah, Yahweh, etc) doesn't exist...I agree with you.
But, "God" is not definitively limited to Religious Deities. You need to get hip to that.
So what is the problem then? Why would I need to worry about this assessment that man was not created?
I'm just going to let whoever wants to assert that man was created to worry about proving that assertion.
For me it is a very reasonable default position on pretty much anything.
You assert - you prove.
And until you do, although I'm not asserting the opposite, I just ignore your assertion/claim and live my life under assumption that my null hypothesis for your assertion/claim is correct.
Very reasonable approach that served me very well, I', happy to say.
So, within my posts here and by your own admission, I demonstrated
with success that MAN did NOT create himself, or this reality, and also
that it CANNOT be maintained that MAN was NOT created, yet you
act as if these FACTS make no progress in reaching a conclusion ?
So, within my posts here and by your own admission, I demonstrated
with success that MAN did NOT create himself or this reality, ,
Please show the post when this proposition - MAN did NOT create himself or this reality, - was even part of consideration. Who was claiming that man DID create himself or this reality? I certainly did not.
Quote:
and also
that it CANNOT be maintained that MAN was NOT created,
Who is arguing with that? I certainly don't.
Of course there is a possibility that man was created.
But since I don't make a claim that man was created and those who make this claim
can not prove it, I simply ignore this claim as useless blah-blah-blah.
Quote:
yet you
act as if these FACTS make no progress in reaching a conclusion?
What conclusion? What am I suppose to do? Do I have to make a conclusion for you?
Make a conclusion and we will see together if that conclusion is valid.
No. It is YOU arguing about how YOU, et al, define GOD. And arguing that we should all limit the definition to your abbreviated understanding.
I am not using MY definition...or YOUR definition...I am using THE definition.
Based on THE definition...GOD objectively exists. That's a fact.
If you want to argue that "Biblegod" (Jehovah, Yahweh, etc) doesn't exist...I agree with you.
But, "God" is not definitively limited to Religious Deities. You need to get hip to that.
I don't need to get hip to any ideas put forth by someone who can't even answer a simple question about the difference between the physical universe and your calling it God , IF you are not simply relabeling the universe God for your convenience .
Until YOU can do that one simple thing you have nothing else worth listening to .
Try the question again if you dare . If not , why should I bother with someone who cant even explain himself ? And you didn't answer my question about the Christians and their God either . So now we have two unanswered questions on your end . So man up , engage in a two way discussion, or let the adults who can actually explain themselves continue the discussion while you go outside and play .
I don't need to get hip to any ideas put forth by someone who can't even answer a simple question about the difference between the physical universe and your calling it God , IF you are not simply relabeling the universe God for your convenience .
Until YOU can do that one simple thing you have nothing else worth listening to .
Try the question again if you dare . If not , why should I bother with someone who cant even explain himself ? And you didn't answer my question about the Christians and their God either . So now we have two unanswered questions on your end . So man up , engage in a two way discussion, or let the adults who can actually explain themselves continue the discussion while you go outside and play .
It has been explained many, many, many times before...you are just cranking. I know it, and you know I do.
There is no difference. The Universe (ALL, EVERYTHING, REALITY) IS God.
Based upon its attributes...and thus how it comports definitively...I perceive it as God, and assign it that TITLE.
There is no "relabeling" or "renaming"...it is still The Universe, with the TITLE "God" assigned to it based upon its attributes.
Just like in my analogical question...Barack Obama is still Barack Obama...but based upon his attribute of winning the election, the TITLE "President" is assigned and added. He isn't "relabled" President...though he may be referred to simply as "President"...he is TITLED "President". And thus, he IS "President"...and such a thing as "President" objectively exists.
It has been explained many, many, many times before...you are just cranking. I know it, and you know I do.
There is no difference. The Universe (ALL, EVERYTHING, REALITY) IS God.
Based upon its attributes...and thus how it comports definitively...I perceive it as God, and assign it that TITLE.
There is no "relabeling" or "renaming"...it is still The Universe, with the TITLE "God" assigned to it based upon its attributes.
Just like in my analogical question...Barack Obama is still Barack Obama...but based upon his attribute of winning the election, the TITLE "President" is assigned and added. He isn't "relabled" President...though he may be referred to simply as "President"...he is TITLED "President". And thus, he IS "President"...and such a thing as "President" objectively exists.
"It's not relabeling, we are just going to call it God instead of the universe even though the rest of the world considers God a supernatural deity".
LOL . Go outside and play . It's painfully obvious you can't even answer the question about how the Christians view the version of God the atheists debate them about. Why is that ? Why the need for total avoidance of any and all questions asked by others ?
Last edited by wallflash; 03-07-2016 at 10:19 AM..
"It's not relabeling, we are just going to call it God instead of the universe".
LOL . Go outside and play . It's painfully obvious you can't even answer the question about how the Christians view the version of God the atheists debate them about. Why is that ? Why the need for total avoidance of any and all questions asked by others ?
One of the reasons for the ignore button. If they do not want a serious discussion they do not need to included in that discussion
Kudos to Mystic and Golden...If you think about it, what we are seeing here is an example of the OP (proof that man created god) in real time....case closed.
Of course there is a possibility that man was created.
But since I don't make a claim that man was created and those who make this claim
can not prove it, I simply ignore this claim as useless blah-blah-blah.
Either man/everything was created (most likely), or nothing was created;
for everything is present and past evidently manifest, so it matters not
if man/everything was "created" or not, for the definition of God is
not merely "he who created", which is an action, not a being.
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.
