Theists - Please define the term "god".

NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Theists - Please define the term "god".

Hello, as you can see, the subject title speaks for itself.

Though, let me show you what I want to hear from Theists:

Define - State meaning and identify essential qualities

Furthermore, here is what I don't want to hear:

1."God" is Love

2."God" is the creator of the universe

3."God" is the almighty creator of all things

4."God" is perfect

You’re asking yourself why I don't want to hear these answers? Alright, let me explain why...

The first answer doesn't tell me what "god" is, Love is a feeling with is caused by a mechanism which can be proven, but "god" is no proven, so "god" cannot be love since love is a feeling. Furthermore from that answer, there rises the question How is "god" love? In what sense is "god" love? Elaborate on what you mean by "love" and so on.

The second answer in my favorite one. This is how Theist say it "God is the creator of the universe" this is how I or Atheist receive it "Unknown is the creator of the universe", why you ask? Because "god" is not defined in that sentence, let me take of "god" and input "human" and take of "universe" and input "religion", now look again "Humans are the creator of religion". Now does this define the term "human(s)”? Nope, so that sentence is not defining humans and they definitely aren’t defining "god".

Third one is the same as the second just that it includes "all things" and "almighty". Now let me just tell you the contradiction which appears with the term "almighty". By saying a being is "Almighty" your making the statement that the being can do anything. So let’s face with a logic paradox. If "god" is "almighty" thus by that "god" can create a "rock" which "he" cannot lift, which makes "god" not "almighty" anymore and limited. So there it goes, there cannot be a being that is "almighty".

 

Fourth one is pretty much funny. Alright, Perfection, Perfect... A religion person will say "god" is eternal, and ok I’ll accept that, the person than also will say that "god" is perfect, now that shows me a problem. An eternal perfect being, Woaw. Lets define a perfect being, basically it means that the being has no wishes, nor demands, nor needs, its simply full, it has everything, it needs nothing. Now ok we got that, but there is a problem here, "god" created the universe as claimed by religious people, BUT why would a perfect being create something when the being is already perfect and has been for eternity, what was the point of it? I mean did "god" one day while "walking" and singing stairways to heaven all of the sudden had this SILLY very silly idea of creating a universe? I can imagine how that would be "God: Oh I got a great idea, I should create a universe even though I know what will happen anyway, ah fu*k it, I'll do it for the fun of it"

So theists please do answer my question ;(.

 

 

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Thanks for that numb... ;

 

Thanks for that numb... ; The theists can't, and won't. The god of abraham was dead long ago amoung all our brightest intellecuals.... Shit, even Jesus and Buddha were really "atheists" ....

The problem is always the "system of control", as even today the mass brainwash from the privately owned media, especially the TV. The TV is too important to our world, to allow it's misuse to continue . The god debates were over long ago, the problem is, the masses doesn't even know it, but could/should.

The sooner the TV/Radio is fixed, the sooner our kids will be free 'ER ..... and War will be an old embarrassment.

As an atheist and a buddha(jesus) fan mabey you will also enjoy this 3 min clip , let me know ? ..... Wisdom of the Buddha 3 min, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI

Keep caring, look into you ....


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The "omni" god concept is

The "omni" god concept is nothing more than human phycology projecting a utopian autruism. It is projecting anthropromorphic human qualities on the unknown. It is filling in the gaps with fiction to give humans a false sense of understanding.

You wont get any emperical definition of god. It is a playdough word that can be twisted to suit the believers justification for claiming it.

The "omni" claims are not a definition of what god is made of or what it is, those "omni" claims only adress what it's powers are, not what it is.

God is a word used to mask ignorance of the unknown. It is a retarding word that stunts the growth of the ability to go beyond current knowlege. "Since we don't know, a magical puppiteer in the sky did it".

When one excapes using this word and faces reality it opens the door to break our current cealing of knowlege. It is infinatly likely that the species will die out without coming close to knowing most of what is yet undiscovered.

However, "God" "deity" "supernatural" are meaningless words in regards to objectively mesuring the world around us and woefully inadiquate. I'd trust a microscope or tape mesure before I'd believe any superstitious garbage out of any holy book of any religion.

 Good luck getting a definition. You will get one, but I have yet to see one that doesnt look like Swiss Cheese.

Funny, this post has been here for a quite a while and no takers. I wonder what they are afraid of? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for you brief

Thank you for you brief explanations guys.

Quote:
Funny, this post has been here for a quite a while and no takers. I wonder what they are afraid of?
 

Well, believe me I wonder why as well. Since many religious people are very confident in what they believe, however I'm quite sure if you ask them the same question I’m asking now, they will be silent. It’s interesting... How people actually believe so much in "god" and don't even know what the term "god" stands for or means, nor what it is or anything about the term.

 I think my question will remain unanswered. Hopes are high that someone will be able to answer it, but it seems a Utopia to me ;(

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This question has been

This question has been asked dozens of times over the last couple of years.  Although there have been a couple of ill-advised attempts, there has not yet been one definition that didn't literally beg a question.

This alone should speak volumes about the rationality of religion -- to commit one's life to something that has no definition would seem the height of irrationality.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
True, very true

True, very true Hamby.

 About the rationality of religion, that’s a topic to debate about. 

Well, no one is born with a religion, but you got to bear in mind that children in early age get influenced very easy by any propaganda or imaginative stories. Religion relies on family, ambient, social life, education. Now obviously if you are born in Iran you will most likely or 100% Muslim. Because your family will input their beliefs in you, the education will be based on the faith, social life will play a huge deal on religion as well, and if you live in Iran obviously your friends will be religious. So a lot of things have a role to play in what religion you might end up believing in. And the outcome is that you ignore everything else, you just believe in your religion and just ignore scientific facts and so on, and I mean I can understand in some occasions e.g. If you have been in a strong religious family and you have practicing that religion from very, very early age, I don't think a person as that would care anymore, his to much used to his religion and keeps being ignorant and stubborn about it. That’s why religion is danger’s in a way, because people actually think by believing such a thing makes it true ( Fundies mistake that ).

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx.


crazytheist
Theist
crazytheist's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
  To me, god is:1) The

 

To me, god is:1) The force the drives nature.God is not scientific, or is he a part of nature.  God is outside, and is wholly independent of nature.  God can at anytime intervene in the natural, but chooses not to.  Why? I DON’T KNOW.  I wish this was a better answer, for you.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
God is the infinite

God is the infinite consciousness. The limiting of the potiental of conscious life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

 

Oh, and before you proceed with the 'You're just giving another name to the universe, you might as well say your toaster is God!'

 

No, I'm not. Pantheists believe this gives an ultimate purpose to life. A purpose you could not get simply by 're-defining' the universe 

 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I learned a long time ago

I learned a long time ago that the best way to deal with you ignostic types is to have a God that physically exists.

My God is a fruit smoothie. Specifically, my God is the 3-Berry Blast, from Orange Julius. Its "qualities" are thus: a blend frozen yogurt, sugar, strawberries, blackberries, and raspberries. It is very tasty.

As for why I have chosen to deign it a deity, the answer is simply that I get more out of it.

 

P.S. Love the sig. Classic. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
crazytheist wrote:   To

crazytheist wrote:

 

To me, god is:1) The force the drives nature.God is not scientific, or is he a part of nature. God is outside, and is wholly independent of nature. God can at anytime intervene in the natural, but chooses not to. Why? I DON’T KNOW. I wish this was a better answer, for you.

"The force that drives nature"

Physics,is not a "god" anymore than gravity is a being. Things like theromodynamics and quantum mechanics are not dependant on myth or hocus pocus. "The force that drives nature" is not a being. It is merely a jumble of potential and kenetic energy bouncing around. It is an insult to human intelect to turn natural science into such a inadiquate word such as "god". If you are going to do that, you might as well call it Thor or Snarfwidget.

Why not just skip the superstitious word "God", admit that there are things we have yet to discover, insted of using a word rooted in myth?

"I dont know" .......Yep, so how can you make claims about something you know nothing about? Why not just say, "I dont know" without carrying they mythological baggage of ancient goat hearders who believed in a magical puppiteer in the sky?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: God

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

God is the infinite consciousness. The limiting of the potiental of conscious life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

 

Oh, and before you proceed with the 'You're just giving another name to the universe, you might as well say your toaster is God!'

 

No, I'm not. Pantheists believe this gives an ultimate purpose to life. A purpose you could not get simply by 're-defining' the universe

 

You just proved my point once again that you are in the same boat as any other ancient fairy tale lover.

You definded an ambiguous word with ambiguity, the staple of the theist diet. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: God is outside, and

Quote:
God is outside, and is wholly independent of nature.

Then, by definition, it doesn't -- cannot! -- exist.

Please read THIS ESSAY explaining why.

 

Pineapple's definition is equally unworkable, because "meaning" and "Purpose" are presuppositions and anthropomorphic fallacies when applied to the concept of a pantheistic "god."  We've been over this at least a dozen times, and the definition always breaks down.  Just read through his infinite consciousness threads and you'll see.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Pineapple's definition is equally unworkable, because "meaning" and "Purpose" are presuppositions and anthropomorphic fallacies when applied to the concept of a pantheistic "god." We've been over this at least a dozen times, and the definition always breaks down. Just read through his infinite consciousness threads and you'll see.

 

 

 

 

You kept asking me for a definition of God that we can test/falsify. I kept saying that there isn't, you cannot test for purpose/meaning.

 

I've also stated in other threads, that the reason for my belief is the thought of why is there something rather than nothing. 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for saving me the

Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining why your definition is as equally useless as any other.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

 

Pineapple's definition is equally unworkable, because "meaning" and "Purpose" are presuppositions and anthropomorphic fallacies when applied to the concept of a pantheistic "god." We've been over this at least a dozen times, and the definition always breaks down. Just read through his infinite consciousness threads and you'll see.

 

 

 

 

You kept asking me for a definition of God that we can test/falsify. I kept saying that there isn't, you cannot test for purpose/meaning.

 

I've also stated in other threads, that the reason for my belief is the thought of why is there something rather than nothing.

 

 

WTF?

Of course you can test for purpose or meaning.

1. My purpose is to build cars.

2. We know what cars are.

3.I produce yo yo s insted.

4. Since we know what cars are we can compare them to other objects and determine weither or not they are cars.

Quote:
You kept asking me for a definition of God that we can test/falsify. I kept saying that there isn't, you cannot test for purpose/meaning.

If you were intelectually honest her is what you should say, "You kept asking me for a definition of God that we can test/falsify. I kept saying there isnt."

BINGO!

Now add to that, " I merely like what I believe even though I cant prove it".

Pantheism is as bad an explination for the universe as tarrot cards, alchemy and Ouiji boards and as reliable as horriscopes.

You just have a pet project you merely want to believe is real. And for over 3,000 years people just like you thought the ball of gass glowing in the day sky was a being too.

So Captian, when you can prove that a galaxy or super nova has the same function as a neron in the human brain, when you can do that, get back to me. Untill then, I will religate it to the same catigory as I do ghosts knocking up girls and human flesh surviving rigor mortis.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:   Of

Brian37 wrote:

 

Of course you can test for purpose or meaning.

 

1. My purpose is to build cars.

2. We know what cars are.

3.I produce yo yo s insted.

4. Since we know what cars are we can compare them to other objects and determine weither or not they are cars.

 

 

In this case 1 is  refering to you. You know what your purpose is.

There is no way to test what the purpose of the universe is. 

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

So Captian, when you can prove that a galaxy or super nova has the same function as a neron in the human brain, when you can do that, get back to me. 


 

Both supernovas and neurons carry information. 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
My definition is a little

My definition is a little like Cpt's, unsurprisingly as we are both pantheistic and otherwise moderate believers.

I submit God is just like us, a set of state functions correlated over probability axioms by self awareness or consciousness. Mediators between diverse state functions known to theists as 'angels' are superpositional states, these are neither like god nor man.

Man is non-local; thus man is defined as a state function or configuration of a universal state in an aspect of probability, and likewise is god. Neither are caused. Cause is a probability axiom sufficient for tuning a conscious perception of state correlations, eg I drive on a road therefore in the same state space is also the remnant physicality of it having been caused by the act of human construction, causality validates but does not cause, causality is not the end of validation potential, absurd things are validated in spite of the rules of causality simply because causality is one of many valid probabilities. Nothing is caused, cause is a corrollary to decoherence.

sets of probable states are unlimited. The set of probable states which is god is infinite and includes human consciousness. Human consciousness is unified with the coherent wave function, it does percieve the infinite multiverse, this perception is passed to the egotisitical mind, the I being which we know unequivocally is unified with the physical, the reason these two are unified is that very reason, the I ego filters the reception of consciousness. When you touch a table, your I ego knows the table, your consciousness knows it as the seed from which grew a tree that it was and as the lump of sedimentary rock that it may never be. The I ego, filters this knowledge using a process of optimal decision making into what is the most probable and rational state in this state space, therefore it is a table to your hands. the I ego and the physical are inseparable, one forms the other, they each form each other. 

God, is the primary and the ultimate manifestation of this form of existence. The alpha and omega of type-human state functions.

 

I know.... you hate it.... so Fire away.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   ... a definition of

   ... a definition of god ???  "THIS"  or  "NOW",  or "ALL" , or "WE" , or "WHAT IS", "ME", I AM GOD AS .... YOU, "IT",

a time will come, that all god arguments will be no more, and deemed even silly ....

 


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
There is a link below

There is a link below answering the opening Post on what is God.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Bodha 

This if read in isolation will not be clear , you have to read the philosophy of Vedanta also, so it shall be clear.

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
For an idea so commonly

For an idea so commonly held, descriptive data is conspicuously lacking.


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Eloise, Setting the

Eloise,

Setting the argument from quantum waveform conciousness aside (which sounds like it came out of that What the Bleep documentary) your argument is actually quite simple.  It gets summed up in the last sentence... "God, is the primary and the ultimate manifestation of this form of existence. The alpha and omega of type-human state functions."

To restate that in more common form...

Imagine the greatest thing ever.  The only way that thing could be even greater than that is for it to really exist.  Since you can imagine said ultimately great thing, it must in fact exist.  Therefore, God exists.

I don't remember the name of that argument, but I know the falacy in it is that it assumes that existance of said imagined concept is the measure of greatness and that just because I can concieve of a thing, that it must exist in some way.

If I've got that completely wrong, let me know, but that's what it comes accross as.  Also, no need for the self-targeting last line of "I know.... you hate it.... so Fire away."  Don't presume to know that we hate your reasoning, some of us (read me, that I know of for certain) think that your reasoning is flawed, not necessarily contemptable.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Back here this morning,

  

Back here this morning, at the "roaring atomic furnace" of RRS, I just had to say thanks everyone for your writting and links, and for putting up with me. I am one dim flickering candle but getting a little brighter, and happier.

Eloise, "I know.... you hate it.... so Fire away."

~ Hey, I love it , me god...

We are all buddhas on our journey in a dangerous world. The west and mideast needs to know the helpful philosophy of the progressive east, and education about everything. Open public world wide media, is what we need fight for most.

If you have any favorite media freedom fighter sites please forward here or to my in box, thanks


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HumanisticJones

HumanisticJones wrote:

Eloise,

Setting the argument from quantum waveform conciousness aside (which sounds like it came out of that What the Bleep documentary)

 

ugh, that's pretty insulting you know, Jones, being compared to what the bleep. but no matter calling the definition of god I posted 'quantum waveform consciousness' is incorrect. In my defnition the probability wave is the realm of 'angels' not 'god' or 'man'. the human consciousness is receptive to it, but the ego understands it on limited terms.

 

Quote:

your argument is actually quite simple. It gets summed up in the last sentence... "God, is the primary and the ultimate manifestation of this form of existence. The alpha and omega of type-human state functions."

To restate that in more common form...

Imagine the greatest thing ever. The only way that thing could be even greater than that is for it to really exist. Since you can imagine said ultimately great thing, it must in fact exist. Therefore, God exists.

LOL. it's almost true, but not really. a human life is a set of probability states connected and ordered by a clever ego. The primary form of this would be ordered or arranged in such a fashion that it would provide a resource of first principles for definitions of state. Like a human gamete only resourcing a much vaster system of existence. In an ultimate form the system would optimise the primary resource to some maximum end. But then we're dealing with infinities so there would be infinite sets of infinite sets in optimal configuration and it gets confusing as to what is the difference between the greatest state ever and your current state. what if there's no difference? since we can say that your state has a probability of being among the infinite set of infinite ultimates, and your state exists, god probably exists just as equally as your probability of being perfect by some standard exists.

 

 

 

Quote:

Also, no need for the self-targeting last line of "I know.... you hate it.... so Fire away." Don't presume to know that we hate your reasoning, some of us (read me, that I know of for certain) think that your reasoning is flawed, not necessarily contemptable.

Could have fooled me. I don't mean that personally, but I think the general air in here being one of contempt for theists who dare is a pretty simple fact of the matter, sometimes at least. but anyhow, lets not get into that, I'm not here to bicker over who's nicer than who, I just wanted to set the record straight on what I presume to know as compared to what I actually experience as a member of this board.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NumbAndTimeless

NumbAndTimeless wrote:

Hello, as you can see, the subject title speaks for itself.

Though, let me show you what I want to hear from Theists:

Define - State meaning and identify essential qualities

Furthermore, here is what I don't want to hear:

1."God" is Love

2."God" is the creator of the universe

3."God" is the almighty creator of all things

4."God" is perfect

You’re asking yourself why I don't want to hear these answers? Alright, let me explain why...

The first answer doesn't tell me what "god" is, Love is a feeling with is caused by a mechanism which can be proven, but "god" is no proven, so "god" cannot be love since love is a feeling. Furthermore from that answer, there rises the question How is "god" love? In what sense is "god" love? Elaborate on what you mean by "love" and so on.

The second answer in my favorite one. This is how Theist say it "God is the creator of the universe" this is how I or Atheist receive it "Unknown is the creator of the universe", why you ask? Because "god" is not defined in that sentence, let me take of "god" and input "human" and take of "universe" and input "religion", now look again "Humans are the creator of religion". Now does this define the term "human(s)”? Nope, so that sentence is not defining humans and they definitely aren’t defining "god".

Third one is the same as the second just that it includes "all things" and "almighty". Now let me just tell you the contradiction which appears with the term "almighty". By saying a being is "Almighty" your making the statement that the being can do anything. So let’s face with a logic paradox. If "god" is "almighty" thus by that "god" can create a "rock" which "he" cannot lift, which makes "god" not "almighty" anymore and limited. So there it goes, there cannot be a being that is "almighty".

Fourth one is pretty much funny. Alright, Perfection, Perfect... A religion person will say "god" is eternal, and ok I’ll accept that, the person than also will say that "god" is perfect, now that shows me a problem. An eternal perfect being, Woaw. Lets define a perfect being, basically it means that the being has no wishes, nor demands, nor needs, its simply full, it has everything, it needs nothing. Now ok we got that, but there is a problem here, "god" created the universe as claimed by religious people, BUT why would a perfect being create something when the being is already perfect and has been for eternity, what was the point of it? I mean did "god" one day while "walking" and singing stairways to heaven all of the sudden had this SILLY very silly idea of creating a universe? I can imagine how that would be "God: Oh I got a great idea, I should create a universe even though I know what will happen anyway, ah fu*k it, I'll do it for the fun of it"

So theists please do answer my question ;(.

So "love is a "feeling" that is caused by a mechanism that can be proven." 

Your words. 

Please - I would love you to elaborate on this for me. What is this "mechanism" you refer to - and what's proven..??

 It's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense - we can experience both, but we can't (in my opinion adequately) define them.

I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him".

 The same way as there are no words that could possibly come close to describing the feelings that I have for my young son. 

EVERYTHING falls short..!


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: It's

Broncosfan wrote:
It's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense - we can experience both, but we can't define them.

 I guess the other theists here are alot braver than me - I wouldn't even attempt to define God.

The FACT is that God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.

I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him".

 The same way as there are no words that could possibly come close to describing the feelings that I have for my young son.

EVERYTHING falls short..!

Then what are you talking about when you use the word "god"? How can you use a word that has no definition?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
AIIABit of problem for you

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is  'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then  you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you. 

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever. 

 We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution. Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   no problem, I am god,

   no problem, I am god, Jesus said so, and as an atheist, I agree .....  Jesus is right on .... but the bible of that old gov sucks


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Broncosfan

aiia wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
It's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense - we can experience both, but we can't define them.

 I guess the other theists here are alot braver than me - I wouldn't even attempt to define God.

The FACT is that God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.

I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him".

 The same way as there are no words that could possibly come close to describing the feelings that I have for my young son.

EVERYTHING falls short..!

Then what are you talking about when you use the word "god"? How can you use a word that has no definition?

 Did you read and understand my response..?

 If so, please tell me where in my response did I say that there was no definition for the word God..??

 If you want a definiton of the word God, open a dictionary and you'll see plenty of definitions of the word God..!!


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan

Venkatrajan wrote:

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is  'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then  you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you. 

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever. 

 We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution. Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

I guess the point I was making went right over his head. But I liked your response and I fully agree with your comment.

To my way of thinking, ANYBODY who makes definitive statements about something that they couldn't possibly comprehend in totality with certaintly is either a fool or has an ego the size of the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to the question of GOD, ALL we have is beliefs - nothing more and nothing less.

Anyways back to the thread at hand.

 As I was saying. I can't adequately describe with words what I feel for my son.

 The dictionary defines love as follows: 

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The definition doesn't even come close to defining / describing what I feel  - if you're a parent, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm saying - if you're not, you won't have a clue.

And is the "love" that I feel for my son the EXACT same feeling that I have for my mother / best friend / etc..??

Does the EXACT same definition apply..??

But in view of the fact that it's the best that we have as at 2007, then it will have to do - until something better comes along.

Writers/ poets / songwriters / etc have tried for hundreds of years - unsuccessfully in my opinion, to adequate define this "thing" called "love" - something we all know and believe exists.

And yet we Theists are somehow supposed to have a SURGICALLY PRECISE definition of this "thing" called GOD.

And if we don't, then somehow we're these irrational "creatures" that suffer from some kind of mind disorder..!!!??

I enjoy this site from time to time - it always provides me with a "gentle chuckle".


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Looks like great minds think

Looks like great minds think alike.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:
Venkatrajan wrote:

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is 'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you.

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever.

We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution. Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

I guess the point I was making went right over his head. But I liked your response and I fully agree with your comment.

To my way of thinking, ANYBODY who makes definitive statements about something that they couldn't possibly comprehend in totality with certaintly is either a fool or has an ego the size of the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to the question of GOD, ALL we have is beliefs - nothing more and nothing less.

Anyways back to the thread at hand.

As I was saying. I can't adequately describe with words what I feel for my son.

The dictionary defines love as follows:

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The definition doesn't even come close to defining / describing what I feel - if you're a parent, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm saying - if you're not, you won't have a clue.

And is the "love" that I feel for my son the EXACT same feeling that I have for my mother / best friend / etc..??

Does the EXACT same definition apply..??

But in view of the fact that it's the best that we have as at 2007, then it will have to do - until something better comes along.

Writers/ poets / songwriters / etc have tried for hundreds of years - unsuccessfully in my opinion, to adequate define this "thing" called "love" - something we all know and believe exists.

And yet we Theists are somehow supposed to have a SURGICALLY PRECISE definition of this "thing" called GOD.

And if we don't, then somehow we're these irrational "creatures" that suffer from some kind of mind disorder..!!!??

I enjoy this site from time to time - it always provides me with a "gentle chuckle".

Let me see if I understand you.

You say all that theists have are beliefs (yet you and other theists claim knowledge that your God exists).

An atheist says that beliefs by themselves aren't enough to claim knowledge of a thing's existence. The theist response - "Oh yeah? Well, lack of a belief is a belief too! Our God exists - we just can't tell you anything about him. The best we can do is tell you what he isn't" 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Bit of

Venkatrajan wrote:
Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is  'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

There are a lot of things that aren't defined, so you're really just begging the question here that there is an undefinable thing which is special, as opposed to an infinite number of undifferented things that are of no consequence. You're begging the question that an undefinable thing can be a thing at all.

Venkatrajan wrote:
If you dont accept this definition , then  you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you.

That's not a definition of anything.

Venkatrajan wrote:
If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined,

Saying that something cannot be defined is giving it a property of being undefinable, so that's a stolen concept fallacy. Saying something hasn't been defined, or described, or given any properties that don't steal from naturalism, or using positive terms would make more sense, but there aren't really any undefined things to talk about.

Venkatrajan wrote:
which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever.

No idea what you're referring to, but it sounds like a straw-man.

Venkatrajan wrote:
We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution.

Compared to what? We can conceive vaguely of vast spans of time, but our experiences are defined in lifetimes. You've made a temporally-related composition fallacy.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

Straw-man. Nobody said that.


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
My dearest Magilum  Quote

My dearest Magilum 

Quote - No idea what you're referring to, but it sounds like a straw-man 

Not a straw man. It is me telling, not attributing the statement to you. I guess , will have to explain it to you.

What it means is that atheists assume egotistically that they (humans actually) can perceive everything. We cant. It is reasonable to say that we cannot perceive everything.

 Quote - Straw-man. Nobody said that.

Not a Straw man. I am saying this , but  attributing to you, that your ego is so big , that you assume that whatever you perceive is all that is available to be observed. On what basis is this assumption ? There could be things / entities beyond our observation powers. Reality of the supreme is infact only realized by intuitive Self Realization which is the highest ladder of consciousness. Can't be 'got' by senses. Read Ken Wilbur if you can, he has quietly demolished Subject/Object duality which all scientists use.

The base question or comment is thus :-

How have atheists accorded to themselves a special category in the chain of evolution so as to be able to perceive all that ever was , is or around us ?. We just dont know or cant know. The universe is not a City Fair Maze, where you can play for some time and manage to enter all the rooms.

 

 

 

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: My

Venkatrajan wrote:
My dearest Magilum

What's crackin' sugar tits.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Quote - No idea what you're referring to, but it sounds like a straw-man 

Not a straw man. It is me telling, not attributing the statement to you. I guess , will have to explain it to you.

Oh, could you dumb it down? Some of your language is a bit too sophisticated for me.

Venkatrajan wrote:
What it means is that atheists assume egotistically that they (humans actually) can perceive everything. We cant. It is reasonable to say that we cannot perceive everything.

Point to an example of somebody saying that. Otherwise, you're relying on a straw-man.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Quote - Straw-man. Nobody said that.

Not a Straw man. I am saying this , but  attributing to you, that your ego is so big , that you assume that whatever you perceive is all that is available to be observed.

Point to an example of that, I'd love to see it. I really have no idea what you're referring to, as usual with you, but to clarify a point I think you're awkwardly groping at, I think it's rational to say that undemonstrated notions aren't justifiably assumed. The result of assuming an undemonstrated concept would be reification, and any defense of it would be an argument from ignorance.

Venkatrajan wrote:
On what basis is this assumption ? There could be things / entities beyond our observation powers.

N/A.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Reality of the supreme is infact only realized by intuitive Self Realization which is the highest ladder of consciousness.

Unjustified assumptions offered: supreme, intuitive self-realization as a concept, ladder of conscioussness, and dynamic thereof. N/A.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Can't be 'got' by senses. Read Ken Wilbur if you can, he has quietly demolished Subject/Object duality which all scientists use.

Those naughty scientists and all their so-called progress. Why should we respect a scientific approach to these questions? I see no reason. Yep, no reason... nothing right in front of me... that other people are reading this on right now. N/A.

Venkatrajan wrote:
The base question or comment is thus :-

How have atheists accorded to themselves a special category in the chain of evolution so as to be able to perceive all that ever was , is or around us ?.

Straw-man again.

Venkatrajan wrote:
We just dont know or cant know.

Why not? How do we know we're incapable of knowing this particular... whatever it's supposed to be? How do we differentiate between what we know nothing about and what doesn't exist at all? If you started with a phenomenon, that'd be one thing, but you start by insisting gibberish, and move on to stealing from materialism for support. If something, like a feeling, can be explained by natural causes (as has been done), and demonstrated repeatedly in experiments (as has been done), and mapped and recorded as a specific phenomenon (as has been done), why do we need an unsupported explanation plied on to it?

Venkatrajan wrote:
The universe is not a City Fair Maze, where you can play for some time and manage to enter all the rooms.

That's a fantastic analogy, spot on.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: My

Venkatrajan wrote:

My dearest Magilum

Quote - No idea what you're referring to, but it sounds like a straw-man

Not a straw man. It is me telling, not attributing the statement to you. I guess , will have to explain it to you.

What it means is that atheists assume egotistically that they (humans actually) can perceive everything. We cant. It is reasonable to say that we cannot perceive everything.

Quote - Straw-man. Nobody said that.

Not a Straw man. I am saying this , but attributing to you, that your ego is so big , that you assume that whatever you perceive is all that is available to be observed. On what basis is this assumption ? There could be things / entities beyond our observation powers. Reality of the supreme is infact only realized by intuitive Self Realization which is the highest ladder of consciousness. Can't be 'got' by senses. Read Ken Wilbur if you can, he has quietly demolished Subject/Object duality which all scientists use.

The base question or comment is thus :-

How have atheists accorded to themselves a special category in the chain of evolution so as to be able to perceive all that ever was , is or around us ?. We just dont know or cant know. The universe is not a City Fair Maze, where you can play for some time and manage to enter all the rooms.

 

 

 

 

 

But you and Apotheon know your God is real, right?

Even though you two disagree on who that actually is.

 sheesh

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Broncosfan

jcgadfly wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
Venkatrajan wrote:

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is 'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you.

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever.

We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution. Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

I guess the point I was making went right over his head. But I liked your response and I fully agree with your comment.

To my way of thinking, ANYBODY who makes definitive statements about something that they couldn't possibly comprehend in totality with certaintly is either a fool or has an ego the size of the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to the question of GOD, ALL we have is beliefs - nothing more and nothing less.

Anyways back to the thread at hand.

As I was saying. I can't adequately describe with words what I feel for my son.

The dictionary defines love as follows:

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The definition doesn't even come close to defining / describing what I feel - if you're a parent, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm saying - if you're not, you won't have a clue.

And is the "love" that I feel for my son the EXACT same feeling that I have for my mother / best friend / etc..??

Does the EXACT same definition apply..??

But in view of the fact that it's the best that we have as at 2007, then it will have to do - until something better comes along.

Writers/ poets / songwriters / etc have tried for hundreds of years - unsuccessfully in my opinion, to adequate define this "thing" called "love" - something we all know and believe exists.

And yet we Theists are somehow supposed to have a SURGICALLY PRECISE definition of this "thing" called GOD.

And if we don't, then somehow we're these irrational "creatures" that suffer from some kind of mind disorder..!!!??

I enjoy this site from time to time - it always provides me with a "gentle chuckle".

Let me see if I understand you.

You say all that theists have are beliefs (yet you and other theists claim knowledge that your God exists).

An atheist says that beliefs by themselves aren't enough to claim knowledge of a thing's existence. The theist response - "Oh yeah? Well, lack of a belief is a belief too! Our God exists - we just can't tell you anything about him. The best we can do is tell you what he isn'tt" 

 

Once agian, you're NOT reading what I've written. Either that or this conversation is going right over your head and you're just incapable of understanding what we're (theists) are saying.

 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me EXACTLY where in any of my posts did I say that I have KNOWLEDGE that God exists.?????????!!!!!!

I believe that GOD exists - I can't prove it and I don't have direct, first-hand, scientifically-verifiable KNOWLEDGE that HE exists.

I have beliefs - do you understand.?? 

 I believe that the NE Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl this year. 

Do I KNOW that they're going to win the Super Bowl this year..??

No - there isn't a person on the planet who can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that the NE Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl in early 2008. 

Do you see AND understand the difference between believing and knowing..??

 

If a theist says with absolute certainty "I KNOW for a fact that GOD exists", in my opinion, he's just as brain dead as the atheist who makes the counter claim "I KNOW for a fact that GOD doesn't exist". 

You have the EXACT same thing as I do - you have beliefs and opinions about this subject - nothing more and nothing less.

Finally, the question "can GOD be defined" is an easy one.

 Yes - GOD can be defined. Anything can be defined. 

Whether or not the definition is adequate / satisfactory,/complete / accurate / etc is the $64,000 question.

 In my opinion, we're no more able to PERFECTLY define GOD that we could perfectly define LOVE. 

But if somebody tells me they believe in GOD - or that they LOVE their dog, I KNOW exactly what they're saying so from that perspective, the "working" definition  we all have of GOD  and LOVE is fine for the time being. 

Perhaps tomorrow somebody will improve on it - but for today, it's fine..!!

Finally - if you're going to engage in a dialogue with somebody, if the person you're speaking to says "ABC", don't immediately assume that he really means "XYZ" and then proceed to respond to the XYZ answer that you THINK they really meant..!

 Look at the words that are on your screen - not the words that you ASSUME are on the screen..!

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
Venkatrajan wrote:

My dearest Magilum

Quote - No idea what you're referring to, but it sounds like a straw-man

Not a straw man. It is me telling, not attributing the statement to you. I guess , will have to explain it to you.

What it means is that atheists assume egotistically that they (humans actually) can perceive everything. We cant. It is reasonable to say that we cannot perceive everything.

Quote - Straw-man. Nobody said that.

Not a Straw man. I am saying this , but attributing to you, that your ego is so big , that you assume that whatever you perceive is all that is available to be observed. On what basis is this assumption ? There could be things / entities beyond our observation powers. Reality of the supreme is infact only realized by intuitive Self Realization which is the highest ladder of consciousness. Can't be 'got' by senses. Read Ken Wilbur if you can, he has quietly demolished Subject/Object duality which all scientists use.

The base question or comment is thus :-

How have atheists accorded to themselves a special category in the chain of evolution so as to be able to perceive all that ever was , is or around us ?. We just dont know or cant know. The universe is not a City Fair Maze, where you can play for some time and manage to enter all the rooms.

But you and Apotheon know your God is real, right?

Even though you two disagree on who that actually is.

 sheesh

I know and believe that love is real, and yet my wife and I may define it, perhaps feel it or articulate it in very different words and ways.

 Does that inability to define it or feel it EXACTLY the same way somehow negate what we feel and believe.

I don't think so - perhaps you do.

Here's a challenge for you - if you're a man, perfectly define what a female orgasm "feels" like. 

And if you're a woman, then tell me EXACTLY what a male orgasm "feels" like. 

Good luck..!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: jcgadfly

Broncosfan wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Venkatrajan wrote:

My dearest Magilum

Quote - No idea what you're referring to, but it sounds like a straw-man

Not a straw man. It is me telling, not attributing the statement to you. I guess , will have to explain it to you.

What it means is that atheists assume egotistically that they (humans actually) can perceive everything. We cant. It is reasonable to say that we cannot perceive everything.

Quote - Straw-man. Nobody said that.

Not a Straw man. I am saying this , but attributing to you, that your ego is so big , that you assume that whatever you perceive is all that is available to be observed. On what basis is this assumption ? There could be things / entities beyond our observation powers. Reality of the supreme is infact only realized by intuitive Self Realization which is the highest ladder of consciousness. Can't be 'got' by senses. Read Ken Wilbur if you can, he has quietly demolished Subject/Object duality which all scientists use.

The base question or comment is thus :-

How have atheists accorded to themselves a special category in the chain of evolution so as to be able to perceive all that ever was , is or around us ?. We just dont know or cant know. The universe is not a City Fair Maze, where you can play for some time and manage to enter all the rooms.

 

 

 

 

 

But you and Apotheon know your God is real, right?

Even though you two disagree on who that actually is.

sheesh

 

 

I know and believe that love is real, and yet my wife and I may define it or articulate it in different words.

Does that inability to define it EXACTLY the same way somehow negate what we feel and believe.

I don't think so - perhaps you do.

The feeling of love can be explained by brain chemistry.

What explanation do you have for the God you "know" exists?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: Once

Broncosfan wrote:

Once agian, you're NOT reading what I've written.
I dont think you've written what you think we are supposed to be reading.
Quote:
Either that or this conversation is going right over your head and you're just incapable of understanding what we're (theists) are saying.
It's a good sign when a theist starts getting frustrated. It's a defensive posture. This conversation seems to be over your head.

Quote:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me EXACTLY where in any of my posts did I say that I have KNOWLEDGE that God exists.?????????!!!!!!
Caps and punctuation. Joy. If you admit to having no knowledge of "god", then what is it that you are praying to and talking about?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:aiia

Broncosfan wrote:
aiia wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
It's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense - we can experience both, but we can't define them.

 I guess the other theists here are alot braver than me - I wouldn't even attempt to define God.

The FACT is that God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.

I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him".

Then what are you talking about when you use the word "god"? How can you use a word that has no definition?

 Did you read and understand my response..?

 If so, please tell me where in my response did I say that there was no definition for the word God..??

I underlined and highlighted it in bold red.

Are you saying god is love?  I haven't heard that since grade school. Love is an emotion produced by bio electrochemical processes in the nervous system. Do you pray/worship to your nervous system? Funny, because that's how I perceived it also. But in your next statement you say you wouldn't attempt to define god. From this I gather you're saying god is so complex, so huge, so powerful that there's is no words to describe it. But how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?
But then you say in the very next sentence that it is a fact (but its just your opinion [btw facts aren't opinion]) that god is beyond conceptualization. You are a walking self refutation. Can you see how religion has distorted your interpretation of reality?

Quote:
If you want a definiton of the word God, open a dictionary and you'll see plenty of definitions of the word God..!!

Dictionary ping-pong , it goes like this:

The dictionary defines "god" as "the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

The dictionary defines "supreme being" as "god"

Then the dictionary defines "the creator of the universe" as "god or the supreme being"

Seems to be going in a circle.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: AIIA Bit

Venkatrajan wrote:

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is  'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then  you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you. 

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post. On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever.

By the same reasoning you cannot claim a belief in a "god". Aren't you saying, "I believe in that which cannot be defined".

But, it's true. I cannot (and do not) believe in that which cannot be defined. It would like trying to imagine "nothing". And thank you, because I'm going to use it for my sig.

I'm not in the same boat because it literally means there can't be any point in talking about something that can't be defined.

Quote:
We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle
What is a "evolutionary time cycle"?
Quote:
if we are to accept evolution.
I accept fact.
Quote:
Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.
Let me rewrite this: Minor blips cant be 'undefined' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that "something undefined" isnt there/cant be there.

Its nonsensical.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Broncosfan

aiia wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
aiia wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:
It's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense - we can expBut how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?
erience both, but we can't define them.

From this I gather you're saying god is so complex, so huge, so powerful that there's is no words to describe it. But how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?
 I guess the other theists here are alot braver than me - I wouldn't even attempt to define God.

The FACT is that God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.

I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him".

Then what are you talking about when you use the word "god"? How can you use a word that has no definition?

 Did you read and understand my response..?

 If so, please tell me where in my response did I say that there was no definition for the word God..??

I underlined and highlighted it in bold red.

Are you saying god is love?  I haven't heard that since grade school. Love is an emotion produced by bio electrochemical processes in the nervous system. Do you pray/worship to your nervous system? Funny, because that's how I perceived it also. But in your next statement you say you wouldn't attempt to define god. From this I gather you're saying god is so complex, so huge, so powerful that there's is no words to describe it. But how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?
But then you say in the very next sentence that it is a fact (but its just your opinion [btw facts aren't opinion]) that god is beyond conceptualization. You are a walking self refutation. Can you see how religion has distorted your interpretation of reality?

Quote:
If you want a definiton of the word God, open a dictionary and you'll see plenty of definitions of the word God..!!

Dictionary ping-pong , it goes like this:

The dictionary defines "god" as "the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

The dictionary defines "supreme being" as "god"

Then the dictionary defines "the creator of the universe" as "god or the supreme being"

Seems to be going in a circle.

 

I understand that this is the "kill em with kindness" forum and we're all supposed to be nice and polite here, but sometimes the inability for somebody to read a simple statement and understand it is mind boggling.

 You ask me " are you saying that God is love"..?? 

Firstly, my words are right out there for anybody to see - if I was saying that God is love, then I would have typed these EXACT words:

G-O-D   I-S   L-O-V-E..!!

My exact words were "it's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense".  

So why on earth would you ask me if I was saying "ABC" when you have my EXACT words right in front of you. ???

And then you turn around and attribute this to me "From this I gather you're saying god is so complex, so huge, so powerful that there's is no words to describe it. But how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?"

Again I have to question if english is your first tongue because you're just not getting this at all.  

I said that "God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.

I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him"." 

I NEVER said there are no words to describe or define him - there could be hundreds/ thousands / millions of words to describe / define GOD - The dictionary defines GOD - it uses WORDS to define GOD - do you understand..?? 

So let's put that issue to bed - there is a definition for GOD

The point that I'm trying to make is that IN MY OPINION,  any definition  of GOD is inadequate  -the same as the definition that I gave for LOVE is inadequate to describe the feelings that I have for my son. are inadequate.

tHE operative words in that statement are 'IN MY OPINION"..!!

Do you understand..?? 

 IN MY OPINION !!

Nobody put a gun to my head and told me to believe the above - nobody twisted my arm. I'm a grown up person - I haven't had a pimple in years, and I can go to the bathroom on my own.

I can form an opinion.

It's such a naive comment - "Gee, who made you not believe in God - how could you know there's no GOD - is that what somebody told you..""

See how stupid that sounds..!!!

Seriously, would you prefer me to try and post what I'm saying in another language..??

If you have a problem with the dictionary, take it up with them .

 I didnh't write it..!!

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The theist

jcgadfly wrote:

The theist response - "Oh yeah? Well, lack of a belief is a belief too! Our God exists - we just can't tell you anything about him. The best we can do is tell you what he isn't"

Let's call that second sentence argumentum ad amica canadia or, "argument by Canadian girlfriend".

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:I

Broncosfan wrote:

I understand that this is the "kill em with kindness" forum and we're all supposed to be nice and polite here, but sometimes the inability for somebody to read a simple statement and understand it is mind boggling.

 You ask me " are you saying that God is love"..??

Firstly, my words are right out there for anybody to see - if I was saying that God is love, then I would have typed these EXACT words:

G-O-D   I-S   L-O-V-E..!!

Oh I see. 'god' isn't love. I didn't think so either. Thanks. We agree on that.

Quote:
My exact words were "it's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense". 

So why on earth would you ask me if I was saying "ABC" when you have my EXACT words right in front of you.???

Ok. Then you said "we can experience both" But love is an emotion. Why would you juxtapose 'love' and 'god' if you were not making an analogy with an emotion? I guess you have a problem expressing yourself clearly.  So then you're saying 'god' is an experience but not an emotional experience.
Ok explain how 'god' is an experience. An experience in what way? Is it a vision, voices, goose bumps, do you float in the air? How do you distinguish between the experience of love and the experience of 'god'?

Quote:
And then you turn around and attribute this to me "From this I gather you're saying god is so complex, so huge, so powerful that there's is no words to describe it. But how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?"

Again I have to question if english is your first tongue because you're just not getting this at all. 

I'm sorry you can't express yourself clearly. With practice perhaps your grammar and syntax will improve.

Quote:
I said that "God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.
Right. And you failed to comprehend that if a concept is too big to grasp how could you possibly know if there is even a concept there at all? This simply translates to, "I think there is something I can't understand, therefore it is 'god'". Also it could be that you are simply avoiding having to confess that you have no idea what a 'god' is.

Quote:
I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him"."

I NEVER said there are no words to describe or define him - there could be hundreds/ thousands / millions of words to describe / define GOD - The dictionary defines GOD - it uses WORDS to define GOD - do you understand..??

So let's put that issue to bed - there is a definition for GOD

Ok let's hear it!

Quote:
The point that I'm trying to make is that IN MY OPINION,  any definition  of GOD is inadequate  -the same as the definition that I gave for LOVE is inadequate to describe the feelings that I have for my son. are inadequate.

tHE operative words in that statement are 'IN MY OPINION"..!!

Do you understand..??

 IN MY OPINION !!

How could you possibly know that any definition of this thing would be inadequate?

Quote:
Nobody put a gun to my head and told me to believe the above - nobody twisted my arm. I'm a grown up person - I haven't had a pimple in years, and I can go to the bathroom on my own.

I can form an opinion.

Really? You made this 'god' thing up in your head all by yourself?

Quote:
It's such a naive comment - "Gee, who made you not believe in God - how could you know there's no GOD - is that what somebody told you..""

See how stupid that sounds..!!!

You were told there was a 'god', you didn't make 'god' up in your head. And you believed it. But you're an adult now, right?

Quote:
Seriously, would you prefer me to try and post what I'm saying in another language..??
I wouldn't care. It would appear your knowledge of english is useless to you in trying to define 'god'.

Quote:
If you have a problem with the dictionary, take it up with them .

 I didnh't write it..!!

I have no problem with the dictionary.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: jcgadfly

Broncosfan wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
Venkatrajan wrote:

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is 'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you.

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever.

We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution. Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

I guess the point I was making went right over his head. But I liked your response and I fully agree with your comment.

To my way of thinking, ANYBODY who makes definitive statements about something that they couldn't possibly comprehend in totality with certaintly is either a fool or has an ego the size of the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to the question of GOD, ALL we have is beliefs - nothing more and nothing less.

Anyways back to the thread at hand.

As I was saying. I can't adequately describe with words what I feel for my son.

The dictionary defines love as follows:

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The definition doesn't even come close to defining / describing what I feel - if you're a parent, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm saying - if you're not, you won't have a clue.

And is the "love" that I feel for my son the EXACT same feeling that I have for my mother / best friend / etc..??

Does the EXACT same definition apply..??

But in view of the fact that it's the best that we have as at 2007, then it will have to do - until something better comes along.

Writers/ poets / songwriters / etc have tried for hundreds of years - unsuccessfully in my opinion, to adequate define this "thing" called "love" - something we all know and believe exists.

And yet we Theists are somehow supposed to have a SURGICALLY PRECISE definition of this "thing" called GOD.

And if we don't, then somehow we're these irrational "creatures" that suffer from some kind of mind disorder..!!!??

I enjoy this site from time to time - it always provides me with a "gentle chuckle".

Let me see if I understand you.

You say all that theists have are beliefs (yet you and other theists claim knowledge that your God exists).

An atheist says that beliefs by themselves aren't enough to claim knowledge of a thing's existence. The theist response - "Oh yeah? Well, lack of a belief is a belief too! Our God exists - we just can't tell you anything about him. The best we can do is tell you what he isn'tt"

 

Once agian, you're NOT reading what I've written. Either that or this conversation is going right over your head and you're just incapable of understanding what we're (theists) are saying.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me EXACTLY where in any of my posts did I say that I have KNOWLEDGE that God exists.?????????!!!!!!

I believe that GOD exists - I can't prove it and I don't have direct, first-hand, scientifically-verifiable KNOWLEDGE that HE exists.

I have beliefs - do you understand.??

I believe that the NE Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl this year.

Do I KNOW that they're going to win the Super Bowl this year..??

No - there isn't a person on the planet who can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that the NE Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl in early 2008.

Do you see AND understand the difference between believing and knowing..??

 

If a theist says with absolute certainty "I KNOW for a fact that GOD exists", in my opinion, he's just as brain dead as the atheist who makes the counter claim "I KNOW for a fact that GOD doesn't exist".

You have the EXACT same thing as I do - you have beliefs and opinions about this subject - nothing more and nothing less.

Finally, the question "can GOD be defined" is an easy one.

Yes - GOD can be defined. Anything can be defined.

Whether or not the definition is adequate / satisfactory,/complete / accurate / etc is the $64,000 question.

In my opinion, we're no more able to PERFECTLY define GOD that we could perfectly define LOVE.

But if somebody tells me they believe in GOD - or that they LOVE their dog, I KNOW exactly what they're saying so from that perspective, the "working" definition we all have of GOD and LOVE is fine for the time being.

Perhaps tomorrow somebody will improve on it - but for today, it's fine..!!

Finally - if you're going to engage in a dialogue with somebody, if the person you're speaking to says "ABC", don't immediately assume that he really means "XYZ" and then proceed to respond to the XYZ answer that you THINK they really meant..!

Look at the words that are on your screen - not the words that you ASSUME are on the screen..!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies, Venk and Apotheon and other theists claim god-knowledge.

You just pray to your belief and believe it had a son. Or are you a different kind of Christian than the ones I've met?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Broncosfan

aiia wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:

Once agian, you're NOT reading what I've written.
I dont think you've written what you think we are supposed to be reading.
Quote:
Either that or this conversation is going right over your head and you're just incapable of understanding what we're (theists) are saying.
It's a good sign when a theist starts getting frustrated. It's a defensive posture. This conversation seems to be over your head.

Quote:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me EXACTLY where in any of my posts did I say that I have KNOWLEDGE that God exists.?????????!!!!!!
Caps and punctuation. Joy. If you admit to having no knowledge of "god", then what is it that you are praying to and talking about?

 As evidenced by the fact that you're not reading what I'm writing - that on two or three occasions now, I've had to challenge you to show me where I said ABC - when, in fact, I said XYZ - why would I waste even a nanosecond trying to explain what it is I'm praying to.

You don't get it - but that's OK - there's no law that says everybody has to understand everything.

 

 


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Broncosfan

jcgadfly wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:
Venkatrajan wrote:

AIIA

Bit of problem for you here. You guys use Atheist a lot too

Please then by analogy try to define Atheist which you are. But when you try to define , problems occur.

The best probably you can do is 'I am the one who doesnt believe in that which cannot be defined.'

If you dont accept this definition , then you give to yourself and others a meaning to God, so we can thank you.

If you accept the definition , you are seemingly in the same boat as him, because there cant be a point in talking about something that cant be defined, which was your conclusion on his post.

On his post anyway , it is surely beyond description , I agree to this , but whoever said that we were and shall be ever for all eternity the most perceptive beings ever.

We are a minor tiny blip in the evolutionary time cycle if we are to accept evolution. Minor blips cant be 'God' themselves, can only be egotists to have the most conclusive conviction that God isnt there/cant be there.

I guess the point I was making went right over his head. But I liked your response and I fully agree with your comment.

To my way of thinking, ANYBODY who makes definitive statements about something that they couldn't possibly comprehend in totality with certaintly is either a fool or has an ego the size of the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to the question of GOD, ALL we have is beliefs - nothing more and nothing less.

Anyways back to the thread at hand.

As I was saying. I can't adequately describe with words what I feel for my son.

The dictionary defines love as follows:

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The definition doesn't even come close to defining / describing what I feel - if you're a parent, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm saying - if you're not, you won't have a clue.

And is the "love" that I feel for my son the EXACT same feeling that I have for my mother / best friend / etc..??

Does the EXACT same definition apply..??

But in view of the fact that it's the best that we have as at 2007, then it will have to do - until something better comes along.

Writers/ poets / songwriters / etc have tried for hundreds of years - unsuccessfully in my opinion, to adequate define this "thing" called "love" - something we all know and believe exists.

And yet we Theists are somehow supposed to have a SURGICALLY PRECISE definition of this "thing" called GOD.

And if we don't, then somehow we're these irrational "creatures" that suffer from some kind of mind disorder..!!!??

I enjoy this site from time to time - it always provides me with a "gentle chuckle".

Let me see if I understand you.

You say all that theists have are beliefs (yet you and other theists claim knowledge that your God exists).

An atheist says that beliefs by themselves aren't enough to claim knowledge of a thing's existence. The theist response - "Oh yeah? Well, lack of a belief is a belief too! Our God exists - we just can't tell you anything about him. The best we can do is tell you what he isn'tt"

 

Once agian, you're NOT reading what I've written. Either that or this conversation is going right over your head and you're just incapable of understanding what we're (theists) are saying.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me EXACTLY where in any of my posts did I say that I have KNOWLEDGE that God exists.?????????!!!!!!

I believe that GOD exists - I can't prove it and I don't have direct, first-hand, scientifically-verifiable KNOWLEDGE that HE exists.

I have beliefs - do you understand.??

I believe that the NE Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl this year.

Do I KNOW that they're going to win the Super Bowl this year..??

No - there isn't a person on the planet who can say with ABSOLUTE certainty that the NE Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl in early 2008.

Do you see AND understand the difference between believing and knowing..??

 

If a theist says with absolute certainty "I KNOW for a fact that GOD exists", in my opinion, he's just as brain dead as the atheist who makes the counter claim "I KNOW for a fact that GOD doesn't exist".

You have the EXACT same thing as I do - you have beliefs and opinions about this subject - nothing more and nothing less.

Finally, the question "can GOD be defined" is an easy one.

Yes - GOD can be defined. Anything can be defined.

Whether or not the definition is adequate / satisfactory,/complete / accurate / etc is the $64,000 question.

In my opinion, we're no more able to PERFECTLY define GOD that we could perfectly define LOVE.

But if somebody tells me they believe in GOD - or that they LOVE their dog, I KNOW exactly what they're saying so from that perspective, the "working" definition we all have of GOD and LOVE is fine for the time being.

Perhaps tomorrow somebody will improve on it - but for today, it's fine..!!

Finally - if you're going to engage in a dialogue with somebody, if the person you're speaking to says "ABC", don't immediately assume that he really means "XYZ" and then proceed to respond to the XYZ answer that you THINK they really meant..!

Look at the words that are on your screen - not the words that you ASSUME are on the screen..!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies, Venk and Apotheon and other theists claim god-knowledge.

You just pray to your belief and believe it had a son. Or are you a different kind of Christian than the ones I've met?

  

I have no idea what kind of Christians you've met so how could I possibly know if I'm different.??


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Broncosfan

aiia wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:

I understand that this is the "kill em with kindness" forum and we're all supposed to be nice and polite here, but sometimes the inability for somebody to read a simple statement and understand it is mind boggling.

 You ask me " are you saying that God is love"..??

Firstly, my words are right out there for anybody to see - if I was saying that God is love, then I would have typed these EXACT words:

G-O-D   I-S   L-O-V-E..!!

Oh I see. 'god' isn't love. I didn't think so either. Thanks. We agree on that.

Quote:
My exact words were "it's funny, but I've always thought of God and love in this sense". 

So why on earth would you ask me if I was saying "ABC" when you have my EXACT words right in front of you.???

Ok. Then you said "we can experience both" But love is an emotion. Why would you juxtapose 'love' and 'god' if you were not making an analogy with an emotion? I guess you have a problem expressing yourself clearly.  So then you're saying 'god' is an experience but not an emotional experience.
Ok explain how 'god' is an experience. An experience in what way? Is it a vision, voices, goose bumps, do you float in the air? How do you distinguish between the experience of love and the experience of 'god'?

Quote:
And then you turn around and attribute this to me "From this I gather you're saying god is so complex, so huge, so powerful that there's is no words to describe it. But how could you know this? Is this what somebody told you?"

Again I have to question if english is your first tongue because you're just not getting this at all. 

I'm sorry you can't express yourself clearly. With practice perhaps your grammar and syntax will improve.

Quote:
I said that "God, in my opinion, is too big a "concept" for the very limited human mind to fully grasp.
Right. And you failed to comprehend that if a concept is too big to grasp how could you possibly know if there is even a concept there at all? This simply translates to, "I think there is something I can't understand, therefore it is 'god'". Also it could be that you are simply avoiding having to confess that you have no idea what a 'god' is.

Quote:
I'm guessing that our best efforts and very, very limited vocabulary could never do God justice in defining "Him"."

I NEVER said there are no words to describe or define him - there could be hundreds/ thousands / millions of words to describe / define GOD - The dictionary defines GOD - it uses WORDS to define GOD - do you understand..??

So let's put that issue to bed - there is a definition for GOD

Ok let's hear it!

Quote:
The point that I'm trying to make is that IN MY OPINION,  any definition  of GOD is inadequate  -the same as the definition that I gave for LOVE is inadequate to describe the feelings that I have for my son. are inadequate.

tHE operative words in that statement are 'IN MY OPINION"..!!

Do you understand..??

 IN MY OPINION !!

How could you possibly know that any definition of this thing would be inadequate?

Quote:
Nobody put a gun to my head and told me to believe the above - nobody twisted my arm. I'm a grown up person - I haven't had a pimple in years, and I can go to the bathroom on my own.

I can form an opinion.

Really? You made this 'god' thing up in your head all by yourself?

Quote:
It's such a naive comment - "Gee, who made you not believe in God - how could you know there's no GOD - is that what somebody told you..""

See how stupid that sounds..!!!

You were told there was a 'god', you didn't make 'god' up in your head. And you believed it. But you're an adult now, right?

Quote:
Seriously, would you prefer me to try and post what I'm saying in another language..??
I wouldn't care. It would appear your knowledge of english is useless to you in trying to define 'god'.

Quote:
If you have a problem with the dictionary, take it up with them .

 I didnh't write it..!!

I have no problem with the dictionary.

 

It's funny - you're a moderator and yet you don't have a clue as to the distinction between beliefs and knowledge..!! 

We're finished talking..!


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  The difference between

 

The difference between belief and knowledge is this:

If you believe something about the world and what you believe has its basis in reason, then you have knowledge.

If you believe something about the world and what you believe has no basis in reason, then you have a fantasy, a delusion, or a mistake.

 

By the way, you can't cite the dictionary as a source since the words listed only appear because they are used and the definitions given reflect popular usage.

In other words, language is arbitrary. All language---the dictionary included---is determined by popularity. It's not "fixed".

You might say that it evolves! (metaphor)  =D 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: It's

Broncosfan wrote:
It's funny - you're a moderator and yet you don't have a clue as to the distinction between beliefs and knowledge..!! 

We're finished talking..!

Seriously dude, I doubt you have a firm grasp of reality

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote Magilum - What's

Quote Magilum - What's crackin' sugar tits.

Quote - Magilum - Oh, could you dumb it down? Some of your language is a bit too sophisticated for me.

Magilum - I find I have affected you and when you see my posts , your mind gets clouded.  Thus your replies dont reflect clear thinking, only the hurt ego shows. When angry, dont try expressing yourself.

 

Quote - Jcgadfly - But you and Apotheon know your God is real, right? Even though you two disagree on who that actually is.

It is perhaps the commonest arguement, that because our Gods are different, it reflects inconsistency and therefore God  exists is untrue. You then conclude that you are rational. Reason is what your mind convinces you internally to enable you to believe in something , but  you call it a fact. Thus all humans  including rationalists have only beliefs, that is all.  If you bring up that there exists an  evidence if any to distinguish between a fact and a belief , we say that the evidence has been created by God to enable you not to loose your insanity. So all science rests on evidences created by God to satisfy human curiosity.

Quote - Broncosfan - But if somebody tells me they believe in GOD - or that they LOVE their dog, I KNOW exactly what they're saying so from that perspective, the "working" definition  we all have of GOD  and LOVE is fine for the time being. 

 

Broncosfan - I see that there is maybe a deliberate attempt on the part of the atheists to sidestep your main point, which is just like you cannot define love , god is also undescribable or undefinable. But love exists and God cannot apparently due to neuroscience bullshit.

I love when the atheists bring up neuroscience in arguments. So we are to believe that all emotions/ feelings can be seen in the brain. If you tickle the brain, you can get the person to feel something.  But it is a chicken and egg situation. If you tickle the brain , you feel love happiness etc. (I am missing DG nowadays, who enlightened me with the supreme knowledge that when the pineal gland secretes a chemical, we feel happy). But what is the cause of the secretion. Where does the causation start ? So guess happiness must start somewhere in my ass, which secretes something 5 minutes before I feel happy , there are a series of secretions, taking up about 5 minutes of secretaions, nerve elecetrochemical movements and then Bingo, it goes to the pineal gland, we smile, feel happy. You Bronscofan have no control over when to feel happy or feel love or sad. You are condemned to be a rock with some intellect, however the molecules inside are the Director of operations as far as you are concerned.

LOl, LOL - neuroscience is just God created evidence to satisfy the childlike curiosity of scientists  and ensure that they dont lapse into insanity by being ever curious.

So folks, God is the Intelligent designer,  he not only designed us , he even designed the evidence for you , that is all.

DG and other rationalists have another fancy theory of Emergent property. It goes like this.

You try to explain something , by breaking it down to higher ontological entities. This is reductionism. The moment you cant explain , but are still able to break it down, you conclude that the property is emergent and exists only due to the combination of the lower 'units' in some manner. A belief without proof, is what I will say. So lets thoerise here and say that God allows materials to be combined in some special manner and a new property results. Maybe there is a God force also to enable combination of elements to form molecules . (Dont bring up valency and stability etc, explain the cause of it down the line , you cant. Chemistry stops and God starts, Neuroscience stops and God starts)

There is without doubt an intelligent designer out there.

Truth shall be  visible to only the greatest philosophers who crush their egoness. Those who say we know, we have evidence, really kid themselves and rest of humanity.  Till the ego is not crushed, God dishes out pieces of evidences to enable the children to keep playing.

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God