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.
Why is a concept of the Universe or multiverse needed at all???? The shallowness of your philosophical perspective becomes ever more apparent the more you talk.
You still haven't improved your reading comprehension since our discussion in the atheism forum, have you? There is no point talking to a fool.
For people who can read, have a look at my post and check to see if I mentioned the universe or multiverse. Hint, I didn't.
You still haven't improved your reading comprehension since our discussion in the atheism forum, have you? There is no point talking to a fool.
For people who can read, have a look at my post and check to see if I mentioned the universe or multiverse. Hint, I didn't.
Hint: What you call it is irrelevant! The fact that your stupid question about why a concept is needed for it would still apply to whatever you called it.
Hint: What you call it is irrelevant! The fact that your stupid question about why a concept is needed for it would still apply to whatever you called it.
Hint: What you call it is irrelevant! The fact that your stupid question about why a concept is needed for it would still apply to whatever you called it.
Hilarious stuff from you as always. Arrogant and foolish, not a good mixture. For people who actually read and think, here are the problems with those two posts from that poster:
I was posting in response to the claim that God is everything and that this is One Thing. A conversations that was going pretty well actually. Now the pseudo-intellectual poster butts in implying that where I use God, the word universe or multiverse can be used (and ruining what seemed like a decent discussion with a Pantheist for once).
Problem 1
This logically means the universe or multiverse is everything, that is some claim to make. For example can concepts exist outside the universe? Can the concept of maths or logic exist outside a universe? I don't know, but it is hardly a done and dusted question.
Problem 2
Why does everything need to be One Thing? You could describe everything as a collection of all things, not as One Thing. The God I was discussing about was the God that is everything and is One Thing.
Even if I was discussing the universe being God (which I wasn't - I was discussing everything being God), you still run into problems:
Problem 3
If Spinoza set out to show that the universe is God, he can't start by saying that the universe is God - that is begging the question. So at the start he cannot already say the universe is God. So at that point questioning the validity of his concept of God is not the same as questioning the concept of the universe. Otherwise he would be begging the question. So I question the worth of the concept of God at the start of his thought experiment.
You view poorly, grasshopper. From what I have seen on this forum, the only reverence you have is for yourself, but that is a different story.
I've educated you on this before, but I guess as a non-learner you need lots of repetition. You don't perceive your god, you imagine it. Try to tuck that away.
BTW, can you offer any evidence for your imaginary "god"?
Ahhhh, yes....the mojo I put on you is still working...and keeps you using my material. My material...that's one of the ways I've educated you...at least you learned that! You're welcome!
I didn't expect you to understand...because you are one of the very few (2.4%) that lacks the normal ability to perceive God that most (84%) intrinsically possess.
Plus...once it gets beyond golden showers, feces and nasty invectives...it is above your zone and you don't have much to offer.
Ahhhh, yes....the mojo I put on you is still working...and keeps you using my material. My material...that's one of the ways I've educated you...at least you learned that! You're welcome!
I didn't expect you to understand...because you are one of the very few (2.4%) that lacks the normal ability to perceive God that most (84%) intrinsically possess.
Plus...once it gets beyond golden showers, feces and nasty invectives...it is above your zone and you don't have much to offer.
Hilarious stuff from you as always. Arrogant and foolish, not a good mixture. For people who actually read and think, here are the problems with those two posts from that poster:
I was posting in response to the claim that God is everything and that this is One Thing. A conversations that was going pretty well actually. Now the pseudo-intellectual poster butts in implying that where I use God, the word universe or multiverse can be used (and ruining what seemed like a decent discussion with a Pantheist for once).
Problem 1
This logically means the universe or multiverse is everything, that is some claim to make. For example can concepts exist outside the universe? Can the concept of maths or logic exist outside a universe? I don't know, but it is hardly a done and dusted question.
Problem 2
Why does everything need to be One Thing? You could describe everything as a collection of all things, not as One Thing. The God I was discussing about was the God that is everything and is One Thing.
Even if I was discussing the universe being God (which I wasn't - I was discussing everything being God), you still run into problems:
Problem 3
If Spinoza set out to show that the universe is God, he can't start by saying that the universe is God - that is begging the question. So at the start he cannot already say the universe is God. So at that point questioning the validity of his concept of God is not the same as questioning the concept of the universe. Otherwise he would be begging the question. So I question the worth of the concept of God at the start of his thought experiment.
Yeah! That Spinazzola guy.
I can see where it would be reasonable that you'd question his logic.
After all, he was only endorsed by people like Einstein, and considered one of the most brilliant men to ever live...which, of course, is nothing compared to Peter600.
The entertainment factor of this forum is getting better & better!
Everything is created by and through ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS (ALL) without assistance or accomplice from any other force: CREATOR
ALL occupies all places and spaces: ALL PRESENT
ALL is inclusive of any and every force that there is: ALL POWERFUL
ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS would include all the mental and conscious energy there is, and everything known or thought at any given time: ALL KNOWING of all that is known.
This mental energy would include all the feelings of love there is: ALL LOVING
These attributes align with the attributes that are given the metaphorical & representative Deity type Gods written about in variousTheological writings.
As per a more generic definition..."G-O-D" is defined as The Supreme or Ultimate Reality and Something of Supreme Value.
It is debateable what would qualify as these...but "ALL" certainly does.
Also...nothing is a "God" except that it is perceived as such by humans...that's what makes it a God.
Even the Religious Deities. They could have left them as Jehovah, Allah, etc...but they deemed them Gods.
I keep trying to explain...God is a title, that is assigned to that which is perceived as such...like "friend" or "hero".
The problem is...Theological Texts referred to the Deities as "God" so much...people automatically default to them as "God", and cannot see God as any other manifestation. It's the CEMENT you note!
I'm a bit confused.
Are you saying GOD is just a convenient title?
I'm not sure what you mean. You have to call it something right? God seems as good a title as any.
Also I don't know what you mean by cement.
I believe another poster talks about cement, but I don't know what that means.
I think what you are saying holistically in your post that you belive in a Supreme creator that comprises everything. I think I get that part.
You still haven't improved your reading comprehension since our discussion in the atheism forum, have you? There is no point talking to a fool.
For people who can read, have a look at my post and check to see if I mentioned the universe or multiverse. Hint, I didn't.
You are fairly new, and I'm sure did not read the Guidelines...but here is an excerpt:
Definition of a personal attack from the TOS/FAQ:
A personal attack is a derogatory statement or statements directed at a specific poster.bDerogatory statements include, but are not limited to, the following:
*****Negative remarks about a person's intelligence, e.g. IQ level, reading comprehension ability; use of the words retard, stupid, dumb and similar; asking their grade in school
*****Negative remarks about a person's physical or psychiatric health, e.g. accusing a member of senility; needing/forgetting psychiatric medications; making psychiatric diagnosis such as paranoid, bi-polar and the like; suggesting a member needs psychiatric help
It is all physics, Cruithne. It is physics that describes how God lives and reproduces, IMO. How God came to exist is suspected but unknown (Big Bang). How long God will exist is unknown. But everything is some aspect of God which is why the existence and attributes of our consciousness mandate that we consider it God that we are investigating with our physics. What else would we consider a ubiquitous conscious Reality, if not God?
Of course, to the typical "separate things" view of Reality, it seems acceptable to believe that our utterly unique consciousness just emerged from all the other decidedly not conscious stuff here and is not an attribute of Reality taken as a single entity. I have trouble accepting the irrationality of using info from less than 5% of Reality to posit the "poofing" of a phenomenon and attributes into existence that simply exist nowhere else in our measured Reality and just happens to exist beyond our direct measures along with 95+% of Reality. My rational assumption would be that it is of the same nature as the 95+% of Reality that contains the measurable 5%.
In other words, the spacetime field that is responsible for our existence is a consciousness field and we are reproducing our cellular portions of it. But, of course, you already knew that, Cruithne. The difference is that my panENtheist view contains consciousness which transcends our immanent Reality. That is indeed another ball game entirely.
Just taking your first paragraph Mystic...
You seem to be saying that you think it's possible that god came to exist ie there was a time when god did not exist.
I'm suprised to see you even considering that as a possibility.
In my view, the universe has always existed in some form. I think there is likely something cyclical going on. It's the only thing that makes any rational sense to me.
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.
