If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (believing, Christ, choice)
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 seem to have trouble understanding what people are saying. No one is saying there is "nothing" there. We are saying that making the leap from, "There is something and that something is God", is illogical. Just because there is something there, doesn't mean "God". You are the one stuck on repeat and seem to let simple statement pass you by.
This thread isn't about whether or not something is there, or even whether that something is God. The thread is about what difference it would make to someone's life if they accepted these things. I guess that above was your attempt at answering this, but to say, "Some would change, some wouldn't", isn't exactly and answer as to how.
no its not ... If it only is about "mattering" then the answer is simple.
for some = yes
for some = no
end of convo.
and, with that both, atheist and theist are partly right.
Like I have been saying since 87. and I have answered the OP a number of times and all he does is flat out deny it.
And once again your intellectual capabilities are shown to be limited to repeating the same thing over and over , as if claiming it a million times will somehow make it true and cause all atheists to admit to such .
Can you offer objective proof of God using any other definition other than the ones that fit your need ? Like the one commonly meant by theists when they use the term God ?
You are wrong.
It is true, even if I never claimed it at all. Because it IS true.
As far as objective proof of the other meanings of GOD...I fully acknowledge and accept those meanings...but it is up to those that have that Religious Deities perception of GOD to prove their objective existence. It is my opinion that they do not objectively exist...but that's just my opinion cuz I can not prove a negative, and it is possible that they do exist.
OTOH, as I have often stated (with no substantive rebuttal)...there IS objective evidence for the existence of the GOD (ALL/EVERYTHING) that I perceive.
THUS: GOD!!...aaaaaaand, Atheism is nullified by that. Very simple, very easy!
You are wrong.
It is true, even if I never claimed it at all. Because it IS true.
As far as objective proof of the other meanings of GOD...I fully acknowledge and accept those meanings...but it is up to those that have that Religious Deities perception of GOD to prove their objective existence. It is my opinion that they do not objectively exist...but that's just my opinion cuz I can not prove a negative, and it is possible that they do exist.
OTOH, as I have often stated (with no substantive rebuttal)...there IS objective evidence for the existence of the GOD (ALL/EVERYTHING) that I perceive.
THUS: GOD!!...aaaaaaand, Atheism is nullified by that. Very simple, very easy!
So in other words, no, the only way you can think you have proven God is by using your one narrow definition that fits your needs . Semantics, in other words .
Yes, there IS evidence that it IS GOD.
It comports definitively, and objectively exists. DONE DEAL!
It doesn't need to "matter" or "change something" to be GOD.
It just had to comport definitively and objectively exist.
You need to get hip to that. Then you might stop with the bogus and impotent arguments.
I objectively behold "Something"...and that "Something" IS definitively GOD. Thus, GOD!
It is Atheism that is the Concept of Nuthin', based on Nuthin'. You guys declare that yourselves.
Besides the fact that there is no evidence other than your interpretation of a definition, you just proved my point. You aren't answering the OP, you are simply repeating yourself over and over. Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself. You are just like the "born agains" who do nothing but post Bible verses. It's sad, really.
This thread isn't about whether it is true or not. So until you "get hip" to that, there is no reason to continue replying to you, other than showing people what you truly are.
So in other words, no, the only way you can think you have proven God is by using your one narrow definition that fits your needs . Semantics, in other words .
No...I accept ALL definitions. They ALL count equally. It is up to the perceivers to objectively substantiate the existence of the defined GOD they perceive.
It actually IS "semantics" that I logically and reasonably employ...in that a known meaning of "G-O-D" comports with the GOD I perceive. Annnnnnd objectively exists.
So yes, I validate the GOD I perceive through semantics.
You, and others try to take NonDeity perceptions of GOD off the table by redaction of known expert definitions and "semantic fiddling"...but that is YOUR game, not mine.
Atheism is in practicality a rejection of deity gods , not meaningless ones. I know of no atheist that would care one way or another about the universe as God . They just don't buy into your semantics is all. But there would be no point in objecting to such a meaningless God .
Atheism is in practicality a rejection of deity gods , not meaningless ones. I know of no atheist that would care one way or another about the universe as God . They just don't buy into your semantics is all. But there would be no point in objecting to such a meaningless God .
this is a personal opinion.
I get it, your anti theist so you are trying to render any god meaningful to lessen religion’s influence. I really do get it, I am even for the end goal. I just don’t toss observations out the window because of my belief. I would never say to somebody "the observations, although more valid, should be ignored in favor of a personal opinion. I have no idea how you can think that is even close to rational. But then again, … fundies think their belief is real too.
You are telling people what is meaningful to them. it's the same as anybody else pushing a meaning on others. It's the same as a person making everyone to drop baseball and play football or to stop golf and build rock gardens.
His and mystic's god are of no concern to me. I don’t care. Pushing "meaningful" as "your personal opinion" is far more of a problem then their meaningless god. They are not pushing their belief as anything more than a personal opinion. They have said that.
so, in the end, for the tenth time. For you, the observations have no meaning. For others they do. What’s your real problem? Because this isn’t the real issue for you.
Atheism is in practicality a rejection of deity gods , not meaningless ones. I know of no atheist that would care one way or another about the universe as God . They just don't buy into your semantics is all. But there would be no point in objecting to such a meaningless God .
Wrong. The Atheist Religion is predicated on the doctrine that no God(s) exist.
A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos (Atheism) = "Without God"
That is how the experts have defined Atheism, anyway.
It doesn't matter anyway...the proof of the objective existence of GOD nullifies Atheism.
No real loss. It was based on "nuthin'" anyway.
When you got nuthin', you got nuthin' to lose.
Wrong. The Atheist Religion is predicated on the doctrine that no God(s) exist.
A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos (Atheism) = "Without God"
That is how the experts have defined Atheism, anyway.
It doesn't matter anyway...the proof of the objective existence of GOD nullifies Atheism.
No real loss. It was based on "nuthin'" anyway.
When you got nuthin', you got nuthin' to lose.
Without God, or gods , but in reference to the supernatural ones, not the meaningless ones .
I get it, your anti theist so you are trying to render any god meaningful to lessen religion’s influence. I really do get it, I am even for the end goal. I just don’t toss observations out the window because of my belief. I would never say to somebody "the observations, although more valid, should be ignored in favor of a personal opinion. I have no idea how you can think that is even close to rational. But then again, … fundies think their belief is real too.
You are telling people what is meaningful to them. it's the same as anybody else pushing a meaning on others. It's the same as a person making everyone to drop baseball and play football or to stop golf and build rock gardens.
His and mystic's god are of no concern to me. I don’t care. Pushing "meaningful" as "your personal opinion" is far more of a problem then their meaningless god. They are not pushing their belief as anything more than a personal opinion. They have said that.
so, in the end, for the tenth time. For you, the observations have no meaning. For others they do. What’s your real problem? Because this isn’t the real issue for you.
*sigh*
I tire of having to repeatedly point out that I don't care if anyone is a pantheist or wants to become a pantheist , but that I simply take issue with pantheists insisting that we must all accept their version of God . You seem incapable of grasping this simple fact, so I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone so utterly unable to process such a simple statement.
Have a nice day .
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.
