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.
I believe that Goldie has told us he is now a theist. He can correct me on this. I don't like the way he used 'God' to mean 'everything' as it is the same semantic trick that Mystic uses. The 'God' label slapped on your garden gnome, thus proving that God exist.
If the cosmos is intelligent, let him prove it, if not it is better called 'nature'. Applying the venerable Pantheism in fine as it is really turning legitimate awe at nature into a religion. It doesn't make nature intelligent - not without evidence of that. Which Mystic and Goldie both know they don't have, which is why they have to cheat.
nipped for space ...
.
Trans, how you demand evidence knowing full well we can't present it is one the dirtiest tricks a fundy thinks can knowingly use. It is cheating far more than they are.
glds knows what he doesn't know. mystic knows what he knows. I sort out the belief in terms of what is in textbooks and what is not in textbooks. We are in a belief forum, not and anti-god to stop religion forum.
We know nature exists. We don't know that a divine being exists. So by calling it nature, or the universe, we are being 100% accurate , and not referring to it by a name that may not be accurate and is only a hypothesis.
So why not call it what we KNOW for sure it is?
Because you do NOT know for sure WHAT it is only that it exists and is responsible for everything and we can discover its attributes, period! You assume it is not God despite its main attribute. On what basis do you dismiss that attribute as irrelevant?
One of the claims in religion is that nonbelievers have no excuse because God is evident in everything you see around you.
Because you do NOT know for sure WHAT it is only that it exists and is responsible for everything and we can discover its attributes, period! You assume it is not God despite its main attribute. On what basis do you dismiss that attribute as irrelevant?
One of the claims in religion is that nonbelievers have no excuse because God is evident in everything you see around you.
No, you are jumping the gun. I said what we know for sure is that it is the universe. No matter what else we know or don't know, we know it is the universe. Why not call it that? Why move away from a word we KNOW is accurate and factual ?
Because you do NOT know for sure WHAT it is only that it exists and is responsible for everything and we can discover its attributes, period! You assume it is not God despite its main attribute. On what basis do you dismiss that attribute as irrelevant?
Because this 'main' attribute would be true for a non-god.
No, you are jumping the gun. I said what we know for sure is that it is the universe. No matter what else we know or don't know, we know it is the universe. Why not call it that? Why move away from a word we KNOW is accurate and factual ?
The word is created with no more established referent than God which preceded it by millennia. Your preference for it is just that a preference, nothing more.
The word is created with no more established referent than God which preceded it by millennia. Your preference for it is just that a preference, nothing more.
Not really. Nature or the universe describes what we know exists. God describes what we think might exist. The two are not the same. One is fact, the other is a hypothesis.
It makes more sense to use the words we know are fact to describe the physical reality we know exists.
Not really. Nature or the universe describes what we know exists. God describes what we think might exist. The two are not the same. One is fact, the other is a hypothesis.
How do you know that??? I don't. As far as I can tell it is God and I see no lack that you seem to think is there because of what you want to see that you don't. The words are equally representative of the reason I and everything exist which is God, IMO. YMMV but is NOT determinate of what makes sense.
How do you know that??? I don't. As far as I can tell it is God and I see no lack that you seem to think is there because of what you want to see that you don't. The words are equally representative of the reason I and everything exist which is God, IMO. YMMV but is NOT determinate of what makes sense.
How do we know which? That the universe exists, which is self evident ? Or that God is an unproven hypothesis? Even you argue that the lack of evidence both for and against God is equal , so you have admitted in past posts that we don't have solid proof of such. You merely try to rename the universe God, which circles back to the topic here. We KNOW the universe exists, so it only makes sense to use the word we KNOW is factual and not dependent on an unprovable hypothesis.
How do you know that??? I don't. As far as I can tell it is God and I see no lack that you seem to think is there because of what you want to see that you don't. The words are equally representative of the reason I and everything exist which is God, IMO. YMMV but is NOT determinate of what makes sense.
so, you are using the know properties of the universe to say you think it may be alive and thinking.
That is plausible due to the fact that in our region there is regions of spacetime that is thinking. Then we look at how connected its all is. Well, a simple look tells its all connected. We are basically nodes of complexity in the volume of space we are in.
You call it god. I think maybe alive, but I don't know. And they think you should it natural. And some just deny it for whatever reason they follow the statement of belief god they choose. The major red flag is that evidence is demanded when it know full well we are strongly suggested not to give it. Its basically a way to deceive by omitition.
Bottom line. They can call it whatever they want. You can call it whatever you want. Its the forum to do that.
The real point is that many of the properties you use to form your belief are consistent with observation and under study as we speak.
I have no convincing evidence that "lack belief" in it has much weight past "I have no idea whats going on and I deny it all."
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.
