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.
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.
Your philosophical shallowness has not been improved with this nonsense. Whatever you call it, it is all there is and is why all that there is IS!
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 know...I have always really liked just about every post you ever made over all these years...I was just thinkin that.
I coulda sworn it was you discussing LearnMe's "Cement Theory" with him...I could be mistaken.
It's about people getting locked into a way of thinking: https://www.city-data.com/forum/42027468-post1.html
You know...I have always really liked just about every post you ever made over all these years...I was just thinkin that.
I coulda sworn it was you discussing LearnMe's "Cement Theory" with him...I could be mistaken.
It's about people getting locked into a way of thinking: https://www.city-data.com/forum/42027468-post1.html
I have definitely come into the middle of conversations with the poster LearnMe regarding his cement theory, but I confess until you posted that, I didn't actually know what he meant by cement theory. I must have missed the bit where he explained that.
But my Pantheism is based in more than just the off-hand assignment of the title.]
Thanks for the clarification Gldn. Makes sense!
You have to understand a few of things though.
1. That post including Nozz is from 5 years ago. You give me too much credit for retaining information from so long ago.
And
2. Nozz was a poster I tended to avoid, so I probably never did read that post. I found his manner objectionable a lot of the time so I just ignored conversations that he was part of.
3. I've always been a person that dips in and out of the forum so I miss a lot of stuff (as you can see from my missing information about LearnMe's cement theory. )
Your philosophical shallowness has not been improved with this nonsense. Whatever you call it, it is all there is and is why all that there is IS!
It's ok if you don't understand. My discussions with you on the atheist forum showed you take time to grasp some basic concepts, though you got there is the end that time. But it also showed me that a lot of other posters don't have that problem, so my post was for those posters.
I'll leave it to others to make their own mind up as to whether all the following concepts are the same thing and interchangeable:
-All that is/All of reality
-All of reality that is also One Thing
-The universe/multiverse
-God
Ok you are happy that God is both good and evil. I wonder whether other pantheists agree with that. Also God is love and God is hate (and everything else) if we start at the definition that God is everything. Wonder if other pantheists are happy with that (I assume you are happy with it based on your previous post, but say if not).
If God is everything, God could have created life like the body created our blood cells (purely looking at the logic and forgetting about any evidence for now). But God could not have created everything - that is logically faulty. Are pantheists happy with that?
There is a lot of side noise, I will try not to push any of your buttons so we stay focused on a solution (physics style). I tend to answer like I am speaking to one poster so sometimes I use a shotgun. I ask the same from you. Please, I am asking you, if I say anything that you think is me putting in a "dig", let me know. In person I am very animated and if you let me know, I will apologize to you and try to do better.
Its not if I am happy with it or not. But I get your point. Its more that I only look at how consistent with observation the statements are. That is it. That is where I stop. The "religious" and "spiritual" touchy feely part really isn't my specialty past knowing people are like that. Remember, I say "Ok, I see that, but I lack belief at this time."
But I think it depends on the person sometimes also. You know, a football coach type vs a a Kindergarten teacher or good caring hospice nurse type person. Actually personality primary color works really good for us here. Its general enough.
The first issue for you and I would be "creator". That is not needed for the argument in anyway. People use it, but in reality it doesn't mean a thing. I say that because nobody knows so it cancels out of both sides of the equation. Just like in physics, its there, but once we cancel it out, its out.
Do you agree with that?
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-16-2021 at 06:12 AM..
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.
