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.
Of course, it is in fact true what I said, as is typical of you merely asserting things are not true without providing any substance that they are actually true. The simple fact is that the form of "pantheism" you present has no apparent substance to it than merely looking at "everything" and calling that everything "god".
And this post from you is no different. The substance is not there, just you declaring people to be "blind" to it. If you spend the same amount of words explaining the substance of your position, rather than calling people blind to a position you refuse to even present with coherence, you might actually attain some progress, but given past admissions you have made I do not think such progress is actually in your agenda.
Observe how you finish your post for example.....
......... as it fits the MO I describe so perfectly that I could not have written it better myself. Basically in the first half you DECLARE by fiat that there is more to it........ then you immediately shift to DECLARING I am blind to that. In the middle between these two moves however, where most people with any level of decorum would present what their actual position is....... nothing. You give nothing.
Nowhere in the middle do you lay out the substance of what it is that is "more" to it or what I am allegedly "blind" to. And this MO describes pretty much every post you make on the subject. The entire MO is 1) declare there is something more to it 2) declare people are blind to that "more" 3) contrive to not actually in ANY way lay out what that "more" even is.
When you present your "position" on the subject of "god" however I simply have seen no more substance to what you present other than you looking at "everything" and calling it "god". I can remain open minded as humanly possible to the idea there is more to it than that. But as long as you insist on this 3-point canard of dodge I am never going to get to unpack what that substance is meant to be. And as Rafius showed with his link, your approach appears to be pretty consistent with the definitions of pantheism in general.
No, it is not, but this is consistent with your usual approach of revisionism when you want to change a topic or conversation from what it is, to what you would prefer it to be. The topic is not the acceptance of god, but the acceptance of the POSSIBILITY that there is a god.
And I am entirely open to that possibility. I think it POSSIBLE that our universe was created intentionally by an intelligent agency. Accepting that possibility however is perfectly congruent with my ALSO accepting the fact that there is currently not a shred of substantiation indicating that this is, in fact, the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So what? Pointless post, as usual.
Yep. Just a semantic trick. I don't know why he keeps denying it - unless he just enjoys .just denying everything. He's not alone in that.
And I've been telling you - just as in calling 'nature' "God" that there is no valid reason to do so. At the least there needs to be a planning mind behind it all -and the burden of proof is on you to provide it. So far all you do is deny that you admitted there ought to be for "God" to be an appropriate epithet or for pantheism (or Pan-en-theism) to be anything more than Faith -based or (possibly) a pose adopted for the purpose of baiting atheists. With you I am never sure
"Anything anyone claims to "know" is "faith-based belief". Just some higher probability than others. "
Of course. That is why a god (of some kind) is always a possibility. And that the facts of geography and chemistry are so supported by evidence that the dicker about "Know" is just semantic fiddling.
You say you can substantiate the probability. That would be fine by me. Off you go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
His response was just more semantic trickery and mocking. He may be feeling really chuffed with himself, but I doubt that he impressing anyone else.
It has always been more than "calling nature god"...and has been explained many, many, many times. Y'all just don't acknowledge or address it...just verify your "Godblindness" affliction by saying you still can't "see" anything about it.
Just like Atheists that put up thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of posts railing against Theist strangers, claiming nothing more than "Mere lack of belief based upon no evidence"...is demonstrative of a lack of acknowledgment of what it REALLY is.
I've explained it many times...that some Atheists lack the normal God Perceptive abilities and are too Godblind to be able to "see" how it "shows" objectively that a God Entity exists, is most unfortunate.
AGAIN: https://www.city-data.com/forum/46585156-post432.html
You are still making up lies about me, rather than replying to anything I actually really do say or think. I am not limited to any one definition of "god". I have my own, but I am open to those of the people I communicat with too.
But the simple fact remains that here in the west the majority of people following a monotheism are following a "god" that conforms exactly with the definition I gave: A non-human intelligent and intentional agency presumed to be responsible for the creation of our universe, and the life with in it.
So it is not me refusing to let go of definitions. I am merely commenting on the definitions most people seem to operate under. How is commenting on the definitions of OTHERS a refusal to let go of my own? As usual your rhetoric and meanderings do not make any sense or in any way apply to what you are pretending to reply to.
If by "literal" you mean I do not pretend things mean what they do not mean, like you so often do, then yes, I am entirely literal in that regard.
The issue is not whether I accept or reject it. The issue is that your constant need to go from thread to thread hijacking them by saying it when it is not relevant to anything I am presenting is of no interest to me. It has nothing to do with my points or positions, but you stalk me around the forum hijacking threads in order to parrot it at me all the same.
THIS thread is about accepting the POSSIBILITY of god. And my point on it is that I do indeed distinguish between accepting the possibility of a claim, and accepting the claim. And I DO accept the possibility WHILE ALSO accepting that the possibility is unsubstantiated entirely at this time.
Except I am not, and have not, done any such thing. You just enjoy pretending I have said and done things I have not.
I have not placed any such limitations on anything. ALL I have said is that the idea that our universe was created by an intentional agent is unsubstantiated. Nothing else. I honestly have no idea why you need to stalk me around claiming I have done and said things that I simply never, ever, have. I can literally see no motivation for it except that you are intent on eroding what little credibility you have left.
Making the false claim to others that are also on to you that y'all do not redact and cherry-pick the known, expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise the meanings that crush your bogus and illogical "Mere lack of belief based upon no evidence" position...does NOT change the fact that is EXACTLY what many of the Atheist Religion adherents do, and all you have to hide behind.
Further ad Populum about how "the majority of people" define god" is still bogus and illogical. Especially when you are presented with several that define "GOD" as other than a Religious Deity right here among the few that regularly participate in this board.
you keep repeating ... "ALL I have said is that the idea that our universe was created by an intentional agent is unsubstantiated."
Yea funny how when you KEEP attacking positions that A) I do not hold and B) are not relevant to the topic of this thread..... that I might be compelled to restate my ACTUAL position. That this surprises you is.... well.... unsurprising really. Your desperation to push me off topic is as large as your failure to do so.
Again THIS thread is about accepting the possibility of god, and that topic is all I have, and all I intent to, comment on with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It has always been more than "calling nature god"...and has been explained many, many, many times.
Except it has not. Repeating it over and over is not explaining it. As I pointed out in a previous post your entire approach, like it is once again here, is to merely tell us there is more to it than that.... but then not actually say what this "more" is.
So no, you have not explained anything. You merely assert there is "more" there then declare anyone who does not agree to be blind. I pointed out this MO in the previous post and you, hook line and sinker, fell into repeating that exact MO for me again here. It is like I drew the chalk outline of a dead body, and you willingly just went over and lay down in it. I lay out what I think your MO is and you walk right back in and conform to it exactly. Comedy. Gold.
AGAIN, this thread is about accepting the possibility of god. If we are to accept the possibility of YOUR version of "god" then you have to be very clear what you mean by "god" other than, as I said, this seeming need you have to make it a 1:1 equivalence with the word "everything". One can not accept the possibility of a claim without first understanding what the claim actually is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Making the false claim to others that are also on to you that y'all do not redact and cherry-pick the known, expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise the meanings that crush your bogus and illogical "Mere lack of belief based upon no evidence" position...does NOT change the fact that is EXACTLY what many of the Atheist Religion adherents do, and all you have to hide behind.
Except the only time I have ever felt the need to hide is when there is something to hide from. Which is not the case here. If the best you can do is tell us that "everything" is "god" and since "everything" exists then "god" exists, then accusing anyone of hiding from that is as laughable as the fact that there is nothing there to hide FROM.
If there is more to it than that then I am all ears to hear what it is. But following the MO of 1) Declaring there to be more 2) Declaring I am blind to it and then 3) Not actually explaining in ANY way what the "more" is..... is not likely to enlighten anyone as to what (you think) you are going on about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Especially when you are presented with several that define "GOD" as other than a Religious Deity right here among the few that regularly participate in this board.
Except I rarely am. The VAST majority of people I discuss with are believers in a god that fits my definition perfectly. The quantity of people I am aware of conversing with directly on this forum who subscribe to belief in a god that is NOT an intelligent and intentional agency is, I think, 3.
let science define the word god. Little pieces of non life putting us in a larger life form is totally valid. You call it gold, I call it a life form. same thing ... no fear of each other.
The only restriction is placed on us by others with a stone age definition, and indeed stone aged fear, of some non existent stone aged god.
the budhist "enlightenment" is the same thing when looked at through science. The "connection to oneness" while meditating. personally, I don't care, I am atheist by definition, so "theist god" has no bearing on my descriptors. if it fits "how the universe works." I am in.
Yea funny how when you KEEP attacking positions that A) I do not hold and B) are not relevant to the topic of this thread..... that I might be compelled to restate my ACTUAL position. That this surprises you is.... well.... unsurprising really. Your desperation to push me off topic is as large as your failure to do so.
Again THIS thread is about accepting the possibility of god, and that topic is all I have, and all I intent to, comment on with you.
Except it has not. Repeating it over and over is not explaining it. As I pointed out in a previous post your entire approach, like it is once again here, is to merely tell us there is more to it than that.... but then not actually say what this "more" is.
So no, you have not explained anything. You merely assert there is "more" there then declare anyone who does not agree to be blind. I pointed out this MO in the previous post and you, hook line and sinker, fell into repeating that exact MO for me again here. It is like I drew the chalk outline of a dead body, and you willingly just went over and lay down in it. I lay out what I think your MO is and you walk right back in and conform to it exactly. Comedy. Gold.
AGAIN, this thread is about accepting the possibility of god. If we are to accept the possibility of YOUR version of "god" then you have to be very clear what you mean by "god" other than, as I said, this seeming need you have to make it a 1:1 equivalence with the word "everything". One can not accept the possibility of a claim without first understanding what the claim actually is.
Except the only time I have ever felt the need to hide is when there is something to hide from. Which is not the case here. If the best you can do is tell us that "everything" is "god" and since "everything" exists then "god" exists, then accusing anyone of hiding from that is as laughable as the fact that there is nothing there to hide FROM.
If there is more to it than that then I am all ears to hear what it is. But following the MO of 1) Declaring there to be more 2) Declaring I am blind to it and then 3) Not actually explaining in ANY way what the "more" is..... is not likely to enlighten anyone as to what (you think) you are going on about.
Except I rarely am. The VAST majority of people I discuss with are believers in a god that fits my definition perfectly. The quantity of people I am aware of conversing with directly on this forum who subscribe to belief in a god that is NOT an intelligent and intentional agency is, I think, 3.
no, your are wrong.
The topic is the possibility of accepting god. I am telling you let science define "god", you just keep repeating some rejection of a stone aged concept of divine intervention that just is not real anymore.
yeah, no meddler. you said that 1000's, good for you ... so now what?
you are willfully disingenuous in rejecting a real discussion, using real science, on the interactions going on around us and running away from a real interpretation of those interactions because you are afraid of the answer.
I can't modify my definition without your help. I only know, as you do, "alive" is the best discriptor. But you just cut off any reasonable interpretation. doesn't the length of your post point to convoluted logic to you? it total avoidance.
why?
what about the word "god" sends you running away? regardless of the vast majority of people. the vast majority don't know whats going on around them.
It has always been more than "calling nature god"...and has been explained many, many, many times. Y'all just don't acknowledge or address it...just verify your "Godblindness" affliction by saying you still can't "see" anything about it.
Just like Atheists that put up thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of posts railing against Theist strangers, claiming nothing more than "Mere lack of belief based upon no evidence"...is demonstrative of a lack of acknowledgment of what it REALLY is.
I've explained it many times...that some Atheists lack the normal God Perceptive abilities and are too Godblind to be able to "see" how it "shows" objectively that a God Entity exists, is most unfortunate.
AGAIN: https://www.city-data.com/forum/46585156-post432.html
It hasn't been explained at all, let alone many times. I defined what (for Arach's benefit) "God" has to be other that what is generally called 'Nature-reality or "What exists". It is a forward planning intelligence. You say that you denied admitting this. Very well, if you want to say so, I accept that is your position, so if not that, then what "More"? I'm giving you the chance to make "god" more than an unvalidated possibility or a semantic trick and make your position more than just a faith -based claim. Go to it.
It hasn't been explained at all, let alone many times. I defined what (for Arach's benefit) "God" has to be other that what is generally called 'Nature-reality or "What exists". It is a forward planning intelligence. You say that you denied admitting this. Very well, if you want to say so, I accept that is your position, so if not that, then what "More"? I'm giving you the chance to make "god" more than an unvalidated possibility or a semantic trick and make your position more than just a faith -based claim. Go to it.
"G-O-D" is, in FACT, defined (among other meanings) by experts to be "Something of Supreme Value". Those that get all twisted up and suffer Godophobia flare-ups from that, notwithstanding.
It is debatable that any individual thing or group of things could be considered to be "Of Supreme Value"...but "ALL/EVERYTHING" certainly is.
"ALL/EVERYTHING" objectively exists and comports with the known expert definition of "G-O-D".
It would be logical and reasonable to assign the title "G-O-D" to "ALL THAT EXISTS" if one perceives it as such.
I perceive it as such...and assign that title to it.
THUS: GOD. That unequivocally and irrefutably exists. An entity that comports definitivelyANDobjectively exists, is the "MORE". Some definitive manifestations of "G-O-D" cannot be objectively proven to exist.
I present one that certainly does. SO...Done Deal!
This is NOT a "semantic trick"...it is the excising of known, expert definitions of "G-O-D" that is the disingenuous semantic trick. Projection by Godophobic Fundie Atheist Religion adherents, notwithstanding.
"G-O-D" is, in FACT, defined (among other meanings) by experts to be "Something of Supreme Value". Those that get all twisted up and suffer Godophobia flare-ups from that, notwithstanding.
It is debatable that any individual thing or group of things could be considered to be "Of Supreme Value"...but "ALL/EVERYTHING" certainly is.
"ALL/EVERYTHING" objectively exists and comports with the known expert definition of "G-O-D".
It would be logical and reasonable to assign the title "G-O-D" to "ALL THAT EXISTS" if one perceives it as such.
I perceive it as such...and assign that title to it.
THUS: GOD. That unequivocally and irrefutably exists. An entity that comports definitivelyANDobjectively exists, is the "MORE". Some definitive manifestations of "G-O-D" cannot be objectively proven to exist.
I present one that certainly does. SO...Done Deal!
This is NOT a "semantic trick"...it is the excising of known, expert definitions of "G-O-D" that is the disingenuous semantic trick. Projection by Godophobic Fundie Atheist Religion adherents, notwithstanding.
The products of my defecations are of "supreme value" when my bowels are cramping, but I don't assign them the God label as would you, even though they are a subset of all/everything.
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.
