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.
The logical default results from the fact that there IS a version of God supported by evidence and KNOWN attributes. It negates the atheist assertion that there is no evidence ANY God exists. I have my moments of Senioritis at my age, but I have no need of your Ginko Biloba. You contradict yourself in your own post denying any obsession with what others do then bemoaning the fact that my version of God does not seem to affect what others do. Make up your mind. Perhaps YOU need some of the Ginko Biloba.
You seem to have trouble with the idea that we are but CELLS of God's consciousness. No single cell has the attributes of the aggregate of cells. The whole is greater even than the sum of its parts. What about that is not a real sort of God??? What do you NOT comprehend???
Why do you think so? Why do you think our consciousness that evolved on this tiny insignificant planet in a backwater arm of one galaxy is the only extant consciousness within our entire reality????
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
For you it does. For those that believe a proper God would have more than your minimal attributes, and the attributes missing like intelligence , consciousness , and selfhood are fundamental requirements for a true God reject your minimalist definition and your pseudo god.
Is your True God like the No True Scotsman fallacy??? How on earth can the Source of EVERYTHING we know about like "intelligence , consciousness , and selfhood" NOT be a True God?????
Quote:
I am simply having a discussion about your version of God. You are the poster who has for years now spent time here invading thread after thread after thread spreading and arguing your pantheism , so quit acting so hypocritical about my supposed obsession. Such a claim indicates desperation on your part as you realize your version is unraveling before your eyes here . Pointing out that your version accomplishes nothing of substance , not even bringing about a psychological change in attitude amongst its believers , is completely relevant and on topic when discussing the meaningfulness , or in your case the lack thereof, of your version of God . Yours is found severely wanting .
You sure engage in self-congratulatory criticism devoid of any substantive supportive evidence for your conclusions. First off we are strictly talking about the scientifically supportable EXISTENCE portion of my views about God, NOT the complete picture including my BELIEFS about God.The whole package demands the production of agape love of God and each other every single day and repenting when we don't. THAT would be sufficient to affect the behavior of those who fully accept and follow my version of God. However, just like ANY other version of God, its adherents may or may not ACTUALLY adhere to the requirements. None of that is the fault of God. We are all free to choose what we will do or not do.
Quote:
You seem to think it rational that your supreme being gets its intelligence from its creation. I asked before with no answer, so I'll ask again and hope you can muster up the willpower to answer this time . Why do you think it logical for an entity superior to humans to actually get its " intelligence " from those same humans ? Was your God intelligent before humans came on the scene ? What about when the only life was microbial? Was your God intelligent then, or just a non thinking universe operating solely on instinct until sentient life came about ? What about the vast percentage of time there is no evidence of any sort of life at all? Was your God intelligent in the first 10 billion of the universe's 14 billion years before there was any known life , or was your God a mindless lump of matter and energy ?
There are so many presuppositions and presumptions in your queries that it is difficult to parse them out and determine which constitute legitimate queries. Our best understanding of our reality right know is that it manifests within a field (or fields). Consciousness is one such field and if our consciousness is any guide, it is capable of creating ex nihilo some fascinating things. The idea that the unified field that is the Source of consciousness itself and our entire reality would have a similar capability is entirely reasonable. The fact that we are part of the reproduction cycle of this Source of consciousness poses no issues at all regarding origins. What is your reasoning for how a "mindless lump of matter and energy" could conceivably be the Source of consciousness (mindfulness) and everything else????.
Quote:
I don't know that it is, and don't base my beliefs on that probability . But we have no evidence for any other life anywhere, and if it does it would be likely to have taken a similar path as ours in terms of evolution from non-life to simple life and then a slow process to sentient life , so my points and questions would remain the same.
And my answer and question would be the same.
Quote:
But of course we have not even a whiff of proof this is the case , so once again we arrive back at the old bugaboo of evidence from those wishing to make these types of implications to support their fragile and feeble theories . Got any ?
What the hell is your evidence for a "mindless lump of matter and energy" as the Source for everything including mindfulness??? Got any???
There is no observable evidence for anything in the spiritual/God area. If you think there is please provide something more concrete and substantial than empty talk about complexity and the unprovable universe as God pantheism . The default is to not belief in things without clear evidence . That shouldn't be that hard of a concept except when religion fries the logical part of your brain.
well, at some point we have to be honest with our self.
we don't have more than what we have. The logic I gave you makes that claim "earth's volume of space might be alive." far more reasonable to then claiming "earth's volume of space is not alive."
It really is as simple as that.
since the claim is reasonable and you have offered no counter line of logic we are left with the claim of this volume of space is probably alive. Now we can move on to what that might mean to us. I was told by people that do understand the material in this simple version logic that they don't like it because this simple reasonable claim would be used by theist. But I can't talk with anti-theist that would burry reasonable claims off of real observations because of some team color or hidden agenda. I only do how the universe works.
I am not on the side of fundamentalist. They want their definition of god as the only definition. They want their personal emotional stance to be the only logic emotional stance for all. They ignore all evidence that counters the safety of their limited world view.
The logical default results from the fact that there IS a version of God supported by evidence and KNOWN attributes.
If we believe you, that god is just the natural universe. It doesn't think, feel, plan, care about us, or worry about the development of our spirit. If that's all god is to you, you are just an atheist in denial.
Quote:
You seem to have trouble with the idea that we are but CELLS of God's consciousness.
I also have trouble with the idea that I can fly if I flap my arms really fast. The reasoning behind both of my "troubles" is similar.
If we believe you, that god is just the natural universe. It doesn't think, feel, plan, care about us, or worry about the development of our spirit. If that's all god is to you, you are just an atheist in denial.
Well, we are atheist by definition. But our claim, although not the same, means is that "something is there" is more reasonable that claiming "it is not there". And people that just keep shouting "that's not proof" are meaningless at this point. For me, The evidence offered is real, measurable, repeatable, and it is logical. That's the first step.
Now what it means to you and me is another discussion. "god" is just a word. When used it truely does expose a persons agenda. people that run around flapping their arms and ignoring all observation because of a word need to be more honest with themself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
I also have trouble with the idea that I can fly if I flap my arms really fast. The reasoning behind both of my "troubles" is similar.
not really, flight is based on lift. Your arms can't do it. If you have trouble with that (or believe that it can be done) it means we don't understand enough. So I would be fine if people just said, "I don't know enough to counter the claim." and they should not be preachy with "your wrong"either. I know you not only understand that, you know it.
Is your True God like the No True Scotsman fallacy??? How on earth can the Source of EVERYTHING we know about like "intelligence , consciousness , and selfhood" NOT be a True God?????
(1) If it is Nature.
Quote:
What is your reasoning for how a "mindless lump of matter and energy" could conceivably be the Source of consciousness (mindfulness) and everything else????. And my answer and question would be the same. What the hell is your evidence for a "mindless lump of matter and energy" as the Source for everything including mindfulness??? Got any???
Yes. Look around you. Unless you can show that all that matter is as intelligent as we are, then it is not 'God" but a 'mindless lump of matter and energy'. (2)
As I said to Gldnrule - off you go.
Quote:
You sure engage in self-congratulatory criticism devoid of any substantive supportive evidence for your conclusions. First off we are strictly talking about the scientifically supportable EXISTENCE portion of my views about God, NOT the complete picture including my BELIEFS about God.The whole package demands the production of agape love of God and each other every single day and repenting when we don't. THAT would be sufficient to affect the behavior of those who fully accept and follow my version of God. However, just like ANY other version of God, its adherents may or may not ACTUALLY adhere to the requirements. None of that is the fault of God. We are all free to choose what we will do or not do. There are so many presuppositions and presumptions in your queries that it is difficult to parse them out and determine which constitute legitimate queries. Our best understanding of our reality right know is that it manifests within a field (or fields). Consciousness is one such field and if our consciousness is any guide, it is capable of creating ex nihilo some fascinating things. The idea that the unified field that is the Source of consciousness itself and our entire reality would have a similar capability is entirely reasonable. The fact that we are part of the reproduction cycle of this Source of consciousness poses no issues at all regarding origins.
I shifted this to the end because, after the two simply answered questions requiring you to substantiate the 'Nature = God" claim with more than the semantic trick of 'The source of everything', the above is a rather typical example of how you make your case. Further comment seems superfluous.
(1) I always wanted to do that. No, the accusation of a "No True God fallacy" might work if it had any of the attributes we assign to this or that personal god. And you would be right to say that we are defining what a god should be and excluding anything that looks godlike that doesn't fit that definition as not a 'True' god. But there are limits. There has to be some factor that will justify a term such as 'Human', 'gaseous' or 'Logical'. I suggest that the lack of an ability to intelligently plan ahead and bring those plans about (and your God does this, too, in the Spiritual Evolution theory) is the one thing your God -theory has that you cannot point to as what we can see and do not question. Until you can, "Nature" is the right term and "God" is not. It is not a case of not being a True god, but of not being anything we can reasonably call a god at all.
(2) yeah..a No 2. 'How' it did it is a 'don't know' and is not a 'Goddunnit' conclusion. I may observe that all the other known and understood developments, changes and evolutions require only physical mechanisms and not divine. Therefore, a 'don't know' rather gives the weight of probability to a physical origin rather than divine.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-01-2016 at 06:56 AM..
there is only "what the universe does". all things are "divine" as much as all things in "you" make "you". So we just call it all "you". But there is a "you" even if the word "you" is meaningless to a person.
it really is stupid simple. Unless of course we are chasing (or casing) down an agenda. For the life of me I can't understand how stupid thinks separation of church and state means we toss out every reasonable observation about "something" else. Why in no god's name would stupid not find out how the universe works just because they were somehow wronged by somebody. How can stupid just change the "facts" to meet a personal emotional need? very confusing unless we look through an emotional lenses.
I wonder how we could label this stupid in terms of an overall personality type?
Is your True God like the No True Scotsman fallacy??? How on earth can the Source of EVERYTHING we know about like "intelligence , consciousness , and selfhood" NOT be a True God?????
This has been answered many times . Please try responding to the answers rather than simply repeating the question over and over . There are attributes in the area of intelligence, consciousness, selfhood ,etc that your pantheism does not evidence . As such your definition of God is substandard and lacking attributes most people require from a real God . Now please move on from simply repeating this question, as you have , AGAIN, been answered .
Quote:
You sure engage in self-congratulatory criticism devoid of any substantive supportive evidence for your conclusions. First off we are strictly talking about the scientifically supportable EXISTENCE portion of my views about God, NOT the complete picture including my BELIEFS about God.The whole package demands the production of agape love of God and each other every single day and repenting when we don't. THAT would be sufficient to affect the behavior of those who fully accept and follow my version of God. However, just like ANY other version of God, its adherents may or may not ACTUALLY adhere to the requirements. None of that is the fault of God. We are all free to choose what we will do or not do.
Again, show evidence of some greater intelligence and consciousness of your God .
I agree that not all adherents of any faith do so faithfully . On the other hand you chide posters whose spiritual lives you know nothing about simply because they don't accept your pantheism while your main disciple here openly brags about getting rich exploiting people. I'm simply suggesting you might want to focus more on those already following your version and worry less about those you don't know .
Quote:
There are so many presuppositions and presumptions in your queries that it is difficult to parse them out and determine which constitute legitimate queries. Our best understanding of our reality right know is that it manifests within a field (or fields). Consciousness is one such field and if our consciousness is any guide, it is capable of creating ex nihilo some fascinating things. The idea that the unified field that is the Source of consciousness itself and our entire reality would have a similar capability is entirely reasonable. The fact that we are part of the reproduction cycle of this Source of consciousness poses no issues at all regarding origins. What is your reasoning for how a "mindless lump of matter and energy" could conceivably be the Source of consciousness (mindfulness) and everything else????.
A lot of words to say essentially nothing . You answered no questions at all about the state of your Gods intelligence and consciousness at various stages of the universe and evolution . When you can do so we can move forward in this area .
Quote:
What the hell is your evidence for a "mindless lump of matter and energy" as the Source for everything including mindfulness??? Got any???
Nature. Science. The lack of any evidence of sentience , intelligence , forward planning , transcendence , or anything else that suggests a thinking self contained being that possesses and maintains these attributes regardless of the existence or not of any created things within the physical structure of the universe possessing the same and somehow " furnishing " intelligence and consciousness to the source it comes from . Once again, the default is a lack of such if no evidence exists to the contrary . And none does .
You have co opted the fundie circular loop of self verification for your theology .
"How do we know the Bible is Gods word? Because the Bible says it is. How do we know what the Bible says is true? Because it's Gods word . How do we know for sure it's Gods word though ? Because the Bible says it is ".
Except yours is
" show me your God is intelligent .
God is intelligent because we are intelligent and we are part of God.
But your God is the source for our existence .
Yes.
Then how is this source intelligent ?
Because we are intelligent and we are in the universe , so God is therefore intelligent ".
Sorry, that's pseudo god stuff . A real God would not depend on its creation for attributes of intelligence, consciousness , and selfhood .
Last edited by wallflash; 05-01-2016 at 10:29 AM..
well, at some point we have to be honest with our self.
we don't have more than what we have. The logic I gave you makes that claim "earth's volume of space might be alive." far more reasonable to then claiming "earth's volume of space is not alive."
It really is as simple as that.
since the claim is reasonable and you have offered no counter line of logic we are left with the claim of this volume of space is probably alive. Now we can move on to what that might mean to us. I was told by people that do understand the material in this simple version logic that they don't like it because this simple reasonable claim would be used by theist. But I can't talk with anti-theist that would burry reasonable claims off of real observations because of some team color or hidden agenda. I only do how the universe works.
I am not on the side of fundamentalist. They want their definition of god as the only definition. They want their personal emotional stance to be the only logic emotional stance for all. They ignore all evidence that counters the safety of their limited world view.
We aren't discussing alive vs not alive. We are discussing the existence of something outside the observable physical plane of existence , or than can be inferred from such observation .
Come back when you are discussing the actual topic . Of course the Earth has life on it . But that has nothing to do with metaphysical claims .
We aren't discussing alive vs not alive. We are discussing the existence of something outside the observable physical plane of existence , or than can be inferred from such observation .
Come back when you are discussing the actual topic . Of course the Earth has life on it . But that has nothing to do with metaphysical claims .
no, you are. We are talking about matching observations with a possible hypothesis. Of course you don't get that part. You are forcing a type of god on us and we are not buying into it because that Omni dude is not real so you pushing it on us then telling us it aint real is silly.
Also, because you can't see past the noise on your face doesn't mean I am being "metaphysical". You think what you know is all we need to know. Treating the earth as "alive" is not metaphysical" because it is directly observed. Why would you push your slant as reasonable given what you don't know? That's like me going into a football coach's office and telling him.
So you go away until you are ready to talk about how the universe works. Or, maybe, just try and list something other than "metaphysical" and "your wrong" as your line of logic. or take the advice in the PM and don't step into the ring.
no, you are. We are talking about matching observations with a possible hypothesis. Of course you don't get that part. You are forcing a type of god on us and we are not buying into it because that Omni dude is not real so you pushing it on us then telling us it aint real is silly.
Also, because you can't see past the noise on your face doesn't mean I am being "metaphysical". You think what you know is all we need to know. Treating the earth as "alive" is not metaphysical" because it is directly observed. Why would you push your slant as reasonable given what you don't know? That's like me going into a football coach's office and telling him.
So you go away until you are ready to talk about how the universe works. Or, maybe, just try and list something other than "metaphysical" and "your wrong" as your line of logic. or take the advice in the PM and don't step into the ring.
I suggest you stick your "go away" suggestion where the sun doesn't shine. The discussion is about evidence of the spiritual/metaphysical/theism . That would be why Mystic rails against atheism . Comprende? Capiche?
Provide evidence , shut up and quit running your mouth in misspelled English , or be shown to be unable to. Any of the previous is OK with me . I'm not pushing any kind of God, I am questioning the evidence claimed for God . Provide yours or be shown to be simply running your mouth as a substitute for anything reasonable to post .
And I have received no PM so I don't know what you are talking about there . May I suggest you take some classes in how to operate at CD .
Last edited by wallflash; 05-01-2016 at 03:21 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.
