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 not? What is your scientific rationale?Why would you denigrate "Nature" by proclaiming it is inferior to any of its creations. We can think, understand, manipulate and master the creations of our Creator . . . but our Creator can't? You prefer a mindless nothingness as your Creator with inferior capabilities to its own creations? NOT very scientific . . . simply because we have not yet figured out how to "measure" consciousness. You don't deny any other aspect of your "Nature" that we know exists. Why consciousness?
You know full well that I don't deny it. I don't say one way or another, because doing so is to make assertions that are not founded on science but on mere speculation.
So what is your scientific rationale for telling us that we must call the universe "God"?
And answer the damn question!
If it is not conscious, it cannot be called "God". The term "God" is necessarily referring to a conscious being. Agree or disagree?
I you are going to repost and repost the same inane and unsupported assertion . . . let's review:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You ASSERT it is equivalent for your own purposes and then fail to substantiate that assertion . . . there is sufficient Godliness in the attributes that science has verified to establish its Godhood. YOU insist the other BELIEFS be incorporated.You are the one in denial of the Godly attributes of the very God you deny exists simply because so many others BELIEVE more things that you consider crap and absurd. What ANY of us BELIEVE about God has NOTHING to do with God's existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
The difference is that to apply the term "God" to the universe is to assert unscientifically that the universe is conscious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Implication is not assertion until it has been verified. We ALL have those BELIEFS that are not verified or verifiable scientifically.
You are insisting that calling God . . . God implies consciousness. I can say the same about using "Nature" . . . it implies non-consciousness. But those are a matter of BELIEF . . . not assertions. The verfiable ASSERTIONS are more than sufficient to establish the EXISTENCE of God . . . ALL the other BELIEFS ABOUT are not needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
What are these "godly " attributes? Point to something in this universe, and explain to me why you believe it has godly attributes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The universe itself (your "Nature" God) . . . establishes the "laws" that govern our existence and limits our capabilities. It establishes and directs the processes that we investigate and manipulate to our benefit. It created life, provides all that is necessary to sustain it and directs the evolution of its capabilities (including our consciousness). That's pretty God-like to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
We KNOW of the existence of it ALL . . we just can't measure most of it. Not definitions of words . . . but artificial distinctions about our REALITY created by religious conflict and oppression of scientists. There is NOTHING to distinguish the terms scientifically. Both terms refer to our inscrutable Creator and controller of all that exists. Only the characteristics we can't measure are in dispute. What we ASSume about those characteristics depends on our personal PREFERENCES or personal EXPERIENCES. Likewise . . . I don't see how you are linking the entirety of the universe with a mindless nothingness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God is the source of all that exists . . . "Nature" is the source of all that exists. God is the Creator of life . . . "Nature" is the Creator of life. God establishes the "laws" that govern our existence and limit our activities . . ."Nature" establishes the "laws" that govern our existence and limit our activities. God directs and controls the evolution of life and determines its survivability . . . "Nature" directs and controls the evolution of life and determines its survivability. God created consciousness and understanding . . . "Nature" created consciousness and understanding. SCIENTIFICALLY . . . WHAT is the difference? Get your nose out of the dictionary and THINK!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
However, it is not unscientific to call the universe "nature".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Why not? What is your scientific rationale?Why would you denigrate "Nature" by proclaiming it is inferior to any of its creations. We can think, understand, manipulate and master the creations of our Creator . . . but our Creator can't? You prefer a mindless nothingness as your Creator with inferior capabilities to its own creations? NOT very scientific . . . simply because we have not yet figured out how to "measure" consciousness. You don't deny any other aspect of your "Nature" that we know exists. Why consciousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
You know full well that I don't deny it. I don't say one way or another, because doing so is to make assertions that are not founded on science but on mere speculation.
So what is your scientific rationale for telling us that we must call the universe "God"?
And answer the damn question!
If it is not conscious, it cannot be called "God". The term "God" is necessarily referring to a conscious being. Agree or disagree?
Of course I know that you agree..
If calling it God asserts it is conscious . . . then calling it "Nature" asserts it is not conscious. But NEITHER of those positions qualifies as ASSERTION because there is no scientific basis for asserting them . . . ONLY BELIEVING them. Your BELIEF has no superiority and is no more worthy of default than mine. So . . . leaving the consciousness issue where it belongs . . . unverifiable BELIEFS. What is the preponderance of the evidence we can ASSERT? I have listed more than enough ASSERTIONS to justify Godhood. What are YOUR ASSERTIONS that refute them.
Absurd!!! We KNOW of the existence of it ALL . . we just can't measure most of it. Not definitions of words . . . but artificial distinctions about our REALITY created by religious conflict and oppression of scientists. There is NOTHING to distinguish the terms scientifically. Both terms refer to our inscrutable Creator and controller of all that exists. Only the characteristics we can't measure are in dispute. What we ASSume about those characteristics depends on our personal PREFERENCES or personal EXPERIENCES.Likewise . . . I don't see how you are linking the entirety of the universe with a mindless nothingness.
Mystic, how do we know that normal matter makes up 4% of the quantifiable universe? We measured it..
I never said this universe is "mindless" or "nothingness", stop creating straw man arguments.
I don't see how you are linking the entirety of the quantifiable universe with a conscious being, a god. Explain please.
Mystic, how do we know that normal matter makes up 4% of the quantifiable universe? We measured it..
No . . . we measured the EFFECTS the 95+% has on the things we CAN measure. The 95+% itself is unmeasurable directly.
Quote:
I never said this universe is "mindless" or "nothingness", stop creating straw man arguments.
I don't see how you are linking the entirety of the quantifiable universe with a conscious being, a god. Explain please.
Have you been reading or not? What we BELIEVE is irrelevant . . . what we can ASSERT scientifically is the ONLY criteria on which to make such determinations. I have repeatedly now set forth what we can ASSERT . . . and they are pretty darn God-like to me. You can BELIEVE what you want about the other attributes.
I you are going to repost and repost the same inane and unsupported assertion . . . let's review:
You are insisting that calling God . . . God implies consciousness. I can say the same about using "Nature" . . . it implies non-consciousness. But those are a matter of BELIEF . . . not assertions. The verfiable ASSERTIONS are more than sufficient to establish the EXISTENCE of God . . . ALL the other BELIEFS ABOUT are not needed.
I disagree. "God" requires consciousness - asserts consciousness - because there cannot be a god that is not conscious per the definition of "God".
"Nature" is 'agnostic' on the subject. Is "nature" conscious? Most people would guess 'no', but the term itself does not require non-consciousness.
Of course, these definitions are dependent on our defining them. So that is why I am asking you the same question over and over, that you think it's important for you to ignore.
So answer the question, and then a variation for "nature" as well, so we can be clear with our definitions. I'll answer as well.
If it is not conscious, it cannot be called "God". The term "God" is necessarily referring to a conscious being. Agree or disagree? I agree.
If it is conscious, it cannot be called "Nature". The term "Nature" necessarily requires a universal consciousness to not exist. Agree or disagree?
I disagree.
Quote:
If calling it God asserts it is conscious . . . then calling it "Nature" asserts it is not conscious.
Wait, I thought you were trying to tell us that "God equals Nature"?
Quote:
But NEITHER of those positions qualifies as ASSERTION because there is no scientific basis for asserting them . . . ONLY BELIEVING them. Your BELIEF has no superiority and is no more worthy of default than mine. So . . . leaving the consciousness issue where it belongs . . . unverifiable BELIEFS. What is the preponderance of the evidence we can ASSERT? I have listed more than enough ASSERTIONS to justify Godhood. What are YOUR ASSERTIONS that refute them.
You admit there is no scientific basis, but that's OK because the bald assertions you listed justify your "Godhood" (consciousness) assertion anyway?
I disagree. "God" requires consciousness - asserts consciousness - because there cannot be a god that is not conscious per the definition of "God".
"Nature" is 'agnostic' on the subject. Is "nature" conscious? Most people would guess 'no', but the term itself does not require non-consciousness.
Of course, these definitions are dependent on our defining them. So that is why I am asking you the same question over and over, that you think it's important for you to ignore.
So answer the question, and then a variation for "nature" as well, so we can be clear with our definitions. I'll answer as well.
If it is not conscious, it cannot be called "God". The term "God" is necessarily referring to a conscious being. Agree or disagree? I agree.
If it is conscious, it cannot be called "Nature". The term "Nature" necessarily requires a universal consciousness to not exist. Agree or disagree?
I disagree.
Wait, I thought you were trying to tell us that "God equals Nature"?
You admit there is no scientific basis, but that's OK because the bald assertions you listed justify your "Godhood" (consciousness) assertion anyway?
I agree, but God being conscious is adequately evidence that His image is of a race, a nature of being himself and a modeled entity about the formation of Love happening, before he is considerably Conscious and Self-conscious of His imposing actions upon the World.
All the rest, of His subjective capabilities for His meaningful known religious Facts, is a human explanatory judgment.
The concept of God realizes that the Godhead is a Cared for by (the spirit of) Man Supreme Being.
I disagree. "God" requires consciousness - asserts consciousness - because there cannot be a god that is not conscious per the definition of "God".
There you go with the definition crap again! I explained many times WHY that artificial distinction was created and used by BOTH factions to protect their turf. It is a BOGUS and unsupported distinction. There is NO scientific way to distinguish between them using what we can ASSERT (verfiable). You keep wanting to ADD in all the BELIEFS about God as if they were scientific ASSERTIONS . . . they are NOT.
Quote:
"Nature" is 'agnostic' on the subject. Is "nature" conscious? Most people would guess 'no', but the term itself does not require non-consciousness.
The lack of logic training is showing despite your screenname. There are NO differences between the two based on the FACTS that can be ASSERTED (as I have repeatedly shown). Therefore if you intend to maintain there IS a distinction . . . it cannot be made on the FACTS . . . it must be made on the BELIEF about consciousness. Therefore it is impossible to be neutral or "agnostic" using "Nature" in preference to God.
Quote:
Of course, these definitions are dependent on our defining them. So that is why I am asking you the same question over and over, that you think it's important for you to ignore.
So answer the question, and then a variation for "nature" as well, so we can be clear with our definitions. I'll answer as well.
If it is not conscious, it cannot be called "God". The term "God" is necessarily referring to a conscious being. Agree or disagree? I agree.
If it is conscious, it cannot be called "Nature". The term "Nature" necessarily requires a universal consciousness to not exist. Agree or disagree?
I disagree.
Wait, I thought you were trying to tell us that "God equals Nature"?
You admit there is no scientific basis, but that's OK because the bald assertions you listed justify your "Godhood" (consciousness) assertion anyway?
They are NOT bald assertions . . . they are based on the FACTS that can be asserted (verified) and have been detailed several times now. They make God and "Nature" scientifically EQUAL! The concrete is really thick in here. Get your head out of your nether regions and read the damn posts. Consciousness (like your non-Consciousness) is a BELIEF NOT an ASSERTION about an obviously God-like inscrutable entity.
There you go with the definition crap again! I explained many times WHY that artificial distinction was created and used by BOTH factions to protect their turf. It is a BOGUS and unsupported distinction. There is NO scientific way to distinguish between them using what we can ASSERT (verfiable). You keep wanting to ADD in all the BELIEFS about God as if they were scientific ASSERTIONS . . . they are NOT. The lack of logic training is showing despite your screenname. There are NO differences between the two based on the FACTS that can be ASSERTED (as I have repeatedly shown). Therefore if you intend to maintain there IS a distinction . . . it cannot be made on the FACTS . . . it must be made on the BELIEF about consciousness. Therefore it is impossible to be neutral or "agnostic" using "Nature" in preference to God.
They are NOT bald assertions . . . they are based on the FACTS that can be asserted (verified) and have been detailed several times now. They make God and "Nature" scientifically EQUAL! The concrete is really thick in here. Get your head out of your nether regions and read the damn posts. Consciousness (like your non-Consciousness) is a BELIEF NOT an ASSERTION about an obviously God-like inscrutable entity.
How intellectually dishonest of you to dismiss the necessity of definitions in a discussion.
Look, "God" can mean anything you want. But if you define "God" as a necessarily conscious being, then by asserting to us that the universe is "God" you are asserting that it is a conscious being. You can believe it as an assumption all you want, but once you take the effort to assert that it's a 'scientific fact' that the universe is "God", then you are asserting it as fact that the universe is conscious.
My definitions of "universe" and "nature" have no assertion of consciousness or unconsciousness. My definition of "God" does. does yours?
In other words:
If it is not conscious, it cannot be called "God". The term "God" is necessarily referring to a conscious being. Agree or disagree?
If it is conscious, it cannot be called "Nature". The term "Nature" necessarily requires a universal consciousness to not exist. Agree or disagree?
Why are you so afraid to define the terms we are discussing? It should be the first thing we do.
No . . . we measured the EFFECTS the 95+% has on the things we CAN measure. The 95+% itself is unmeasurable directly. Have you been reading or not? What we BELIEVE is irrelevant . . . what we can ASSERT scientifically is the ONLY criteria on which to make such determinations. I have repeatedly now set forth what we can ASSERT . . . and they are pretty darn God-like to me. You can BELIEVE what you want about the other attributes.
We can't measure the suns distance directly, nor the stars! Just because we can't directly measure something, doesn't mean we can't measure it.
No mystic, you can't assert anything and expect it to be accepted, without empirical evidence.
Why are you so afraid to define the terms we are discussing? It should be the first thing we do.
I feel like I am talking with a five year old. There are two separate issues here, Logic. The essential one is that of EXISTENCE and whether or not there is sufficient evidence to establish the likelihood of a God. This is purely empirical and involves the existence of evidence beyond mere supposition. It is NOT necessary for the evidence to be conclusive nor to cover ALL the possible attributes. I have delineated the FACTUAL evidence of the existence of attributes SUFFICIENTLY God-like to justify the existence of God . . . albeit masquerading under the name of "Nature", the Universe . . . whatever.
This is what you and your arrogant atheist cohorts seem deliberately oblivious or just stubbornly resistant to. Whatever you PREFER to call it . . . it is damn well Godly . . . and you cannot keep pretending there is NO EVIDENCE for that conclusion. BUT the epitome of asshat behavior is to then demand conclusive proof be provided and reiterate the false claim that NO evidence exists . . . (all while absconding with the preponderance of incontrovertible evidence and assigning it to your preferred version of "deity.")
The second issue involves the ATTRIBUTES of this God that have NOT been ascertained scientifically, yet . . . such as consciousness . . . and the myriad other potential attributes that might be assigned by BELIEF or PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You and your arrogant ilk assign YOUR unprovable BELIEFS ABOUT the "mindless, purposeless, indifferent" attributes . . . as "facts" . . . and then insist upon attaching the other unprovable BELIEFS ABOUT God to the issue of God's EXISTENCE . . . even though for all intents and purposes THAT is established by incontrovertible FACTS already in evidence.
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.
