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.


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

Venkatrajan wrote:
Magilum - I find I have affected you and when you see my posts , your mind gets clouded.

That's not a reply to what I wrote, you've just dropped the subject.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Thus your replies dont reflect clear thinking, only the hurt ego shows. When angry, dont try expressing yourself.

I still don't see a reply in there. I don't blame you for giving up defending your straw-man arguments. What I don't know is why you bother in the first place.

Also, I'm not white enough to be impressed with eastern platitudes as a consequence of liberal guilt, so you're wasting your breath.


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

Venkatrajan wrote:
It is perhaps the commonest arguement, that because our Gods are different, it reflects inconsistency

The commenest argument? By what standard? Where do you get these qualifiers? It does reflect inconsistency, and inconsistency in an undemonstrated claim ain't good for that claim. Uncorroborated stories are less credible than mutually-supporting ones.

Venkatrajan wrote:
and therefore God  exists is untrue.

You assume monotheism, on what basis?

Venkatrajan wrote:
You then conclude that you are rational.

Yes, rationality sort of excludes arbitrarily plying unsupported explanations onto things.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Reason is what your mind convinces you internally to enable you to believe in something , but  you call it a fact.

It's not even a sentence.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Thus all humans  including rationalists have only beliefs, that is all.

Fallacy of equivocation: using belief based on evidence and belief based on nothing (faith) meanings to the word interchangably.

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

Ad hoc, and barely even that.

Venkatrajan wrote:
So all science rests on evidences created by God to satisfy human curiosity.

Ad hoc.


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

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

It's been described repeatedly as an emotion, which is a function of consciousness, which is a function of physiology. You are your body, your mind is a function of your brain (I'd add an insult, but it'd be redundant).

The case of Phineas Gage:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=231

Venkatrajan wrote:
But love exists and God cannot apparently due to neuroscience bullshit.

Neuroscience is going to unlock the secrets of the human mind. Even if it failed to do so, it would still be the closest thing to it. What have your people done? Make holy ash? Pull brass balls out of their mouths? Palour tricks for the illiterate. You're stealing from the benefits of technology right now just to deride it.

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

Just bizarre.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Where does the causation start ? So guess happiness must start somewhere in my ass,

Don't look at me, I'm not saying anything.

[edit: I think this book would be right up your, uh, alley.] 

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

I wonder what Broncosfan is thinking while he reads this. Is he happy to have an ally?

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

Almost a composition fallacy, but somehow you got even that wrong.

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

Those silly scientists and the progress on which our entire culture is based. LOL LOL LOL.

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

If there's a recall on the design, will you be working the phone bank?

Venkatrajan wrote:
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.

Those ridiculous step-by-step explanations. I can't believe people buy into them just because they can be applied reliably to form a consistent model for reality. Who wants that?

Venkatrajan wrote:
A belief without proof, is what I will say.

To what? That doesn't make any sense.

Venkatrajan wrote:
So lets thoerise here and say that God allows materials to be combined in some special manner

That's not a theory, that's uninformed speculation; an ad hoc.

Venkatrajan wrote:
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)

Demonstrate it. Explain it in a way that doesn't sound demented.

Venkatrajan wrote:
There is without doubt an intelligent designer out there.

Desperation breeds naked assertions.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Truth shall be  visible to only the greatest philosophers who crush their egoness.

Nihilists, in other words.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Those who say we know, we have evidence, really kid themselves and rest of humanity.

The... irony... is... too... much...

Venkatrajan wrote:
Till the ego is not crushed, God dishes out pieces of evidences to enable the children to keep playing.

Yeah, they've got nothing on religion and its contributions.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan

Venkatrajan wrote:

 

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.

This is a stupid claim. Essentially what you're saying here is that man and his rational thinking are fallible, and therefore man can and does make mistakes, and therefore man is sometimes wrong, and therefore man should not be assumed to always be correct.

Well, yeah. So what? Just because man is fallible and can be wrong doesn't mean that he will always be wrong or that he is utterly incapable of being correct. But I'm not stopping at just that point.

 A claim is either true or it is not true. There is no such thing as being true AND false. This is a fact. Either I exist, or I don't. Either the world exists, or it does not. Using my human reason, I conclude that the world exists. Are you prepared to contend that I simply have faith that the world exists rather than this being a fact of reality? Are you willing to contend that each of us only has faith (or belief) that we ourselves actually exist rather than it being a fact of reality? It's the law of contradiction. Something is or it is not.

Let me go back and quote you for a moment:

"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."

Oh, so if all humans have only beliefs and not facts based on rational reality, then I can conclude that the above is not a rational statement. It's just a belief you have, so I don't have to take it seriously if I don't want to, since I don't happen to share it.

Let's take this even further. I'm going to go as far as to believe your bolded statement for a moment. If true, then I assert that your god is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil.

Can you prove me wrong? You might believe that he is not a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil, but I happen to believe that he is. We cannot even begin to discuss this disagreement until you admit that rationality and belief are not the same thing. You can't begin trying to argue that your god is not a ham sandwich unless you admit that reason and rational argument deal with logic, reality, validity, soundness, and all such properties of truth. Otherwise, your god remains a ham sandwich, and I refuse to worship a ham sandwich.

Attempting to prove through reason that reason is insufficient is a silly contradiction.

Of course, all of this can be fixed if you just stop trying to prove that human reason must necessarily be incorrect on everything. You're just trying to create a role for faith, but in doing so you contradict yourself.

As long as these arguments keep hanging themselves, the atheists will be happy to keep standing back and watching. 

 

Quote:

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.

You can understand what is unknown by using something known.

You cannot understand what is known by using something unknown.

It takes a moment to sort out, but you can comprehend if you try. 

 

Quote:

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.

Emphasis mine.

Thank you for admitting your agnostic stance. Welcome to atheism! 

 

Quote:

But love exists and God cannot apparently due to neuroscience bullshit.

It's quite easy really. We can detect love. I can put a little wire on your brain, show you a picture of someone you love, and see the neurological mapping at work. But we don't even need neurology. We can detect it in other parts of your body like your sweat glands, your respiration, your heartbeat, and even---as they case may be---a bit of arousal.

God cannot be detected. God cannot even be defined. You've already admitted that yourself.

He cannot be detected, he cannot be defined, he cannot be known, he cannot even be conceived in.

You might as well replace the word "God" with the word "Flarpknooble" or some such nonsense. You have no idea what it means. It's completely unintelligible. It is nothing more than a combination of sounds that you make with your mouth that have no meaning whatsoever.

You've already admitted it. I've just been more honest about it.

Quote:
 

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.

Not only in the brain, but yes.

Quote:
 

If you tickle the brain, you can get the person to feel something.

Or have a memory, or make them smell colors, see sounds, have an out-of-body experience, or all kinds of crazy things! It's neat!

Quote:
 

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 ?

Oh give me a break.

Happiness does not proceed the chemical, and the chemical does not proceed happiness. They are simultaneous. Do you know how you are able to feel hunger? Your body has a chemical for that to. But the feeling doesn't precede the chemical. The feeling IS the chemical. That's how you feel anything.

When you place a chocolate on your tongue, you are able to taste it because of the receptors on your tongue. You don't taste it before the chocolates meet with the receptors. You taste because the receptors on your tongue are reacting to the chemical composition of the chocolate.

Emotions aren't only chemical reactions in the brain though. There are effects all throughout the body. (But since the entire body is controlled by the brain, well... sorry. That's life.) 

 

Quote:

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.

When all else fails, use the straw man. 

 I mean, I can give you points for "talking hard" or whatever, but this doesn't actually get you anywhere in the argument.

Quote:
 

You Bronscofan have no control over when to feel happy or feel love or sad.

Sure he does. If something makes him happy, he keeps doing it. If it doesn't make him happy, he stops. Piece of cake.

Quote:
 

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.

Just because we are natural entities that don't need a supernatural explanation to account for our existence, emotions, or consciousness does not make us mindless drones.  It also doesn't mean that we can't regulate our own bodies to some extent. (Ever closed your eyes and taken a deep breath while feeling nervous?)

Quote:
 

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.

God is just a primitive man's explanation, given to satisfy the childlike curiosity of his fellow, uneducated, illiterate, and superstitious man to ensure that they don't lapse into insanity by having no explanations for anything in the absence of discoveries beyond their time, such as neuroscience.

Quote:
 

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

Too bad he couldn't design some evidence for himself.

Or make himself intelligible at that!

Quote:
 

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)

Daniel C. Dennett points out that there are two types of reductionism.

1) Good Reductionism - The stance that, while not every explanation requires breaking things down to lower and lower levels,  doing so allows us to unite everything in one overarching understanding of reality, which is exactly what one should expect. A so-called Good Reductionist believes that everything can be explained with perfectly natural explanations, even if not all explanations are currently available.

2) Bad Reductionism - Can mean several different things. One "bad reductionism" view is that breaking things down to smaller parts is unnecessary, which is sometimes true. For example, we don't need to analyze a supreme court decision in terms of biochemistry. That would be a waste of time. But that doesn't mean that we should never use biochemistry to explain larger phenomena. The other complain---or fear, I guess---is that by reducing things down to such tiny components, you are essentially "explaining away" what you start with. That's not true at all. It's simply giving it a new explanation.

You're just being a bad reductionist. Try being a good one. It's much better. 

 

Quote:

There is without doubt an intelligent designer out there.

Nope.

Quote:
 

Truth shall be visible to only the greatest philosophers who crush their egoness.

Haha, egoness. I'll wait for that one on Word Of The Day.

Quote:
 

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.

 

Those who aspire to be real thinkers make up absurd theories like "what if it's all just an illusion?" and "what if it's all just a conspiracy to make you THINK you understand, but it's all just a lie?" (weird that god would be dishonest like that).

It's been fun! 

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


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan:I don't post

enjoying yourself, Pamela..??


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan:I don't post

Venkatrajan:

I don't post here very oftern and when I do, it usually plays out something like this. 

I'll come on this site and say " I like hot summer days.

A rational responder will respond with something like  " there's nothing wrong with nights" or something to that effect.

And I'll say - "I never said there was - I said I like hot summer days - read my original post to see what I said - it's right there in black and white" . 

And their response is "yes - but the underlying, REAL message was that you don't like nights" to be followed up by something like "and winter is a beautiful season - with fields of white snow and cold, crisp air. It's been proven that Scandanavian people live healthy lifestyles and that's attributable to the winters in part so get your facts straight.."!

 And I'll comment that I like winter as well - I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't. But the poster will say ""yeah - but if you like hot, summer days, then it must mean you dislike cold, winter days - that's been our experience with previous "weather people" like yourself you have posted here saying they like hot, summer days - you can't have it both ways - clearly you're contradicting yourself".

 And then I'll get the criticism that my grammer and syntax is misleading and that my posts weren't well written and blah-blah-blah. 

And, of course, their mantra will have to appear somewhere in their post;

THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

 And , of course, other rational responders will jump in and offer support to their brother RSS poster and weigh in with their learned and educated backgrounds and on and on it goes. 

And it all started with this statement by me - "I like hot, sunny days".  

And on that note, I'll shake my head - have a good chuckle - perhaps share the exchange of posts with my wife, who also has a good chuckle (and she's an atheist / physician..!!! - ) and then move on.

Seriously, the posters, who have responded to me have demonstrated time and time again that their basic reading skills are woeful.

And yet they would want to engage in a serious discussion about "something" as cerebral as the Universe and God.

 They might want to start with something a little less ambitious - perhaps a lively discussion about the latest episode of "Dancing With The Stars" - and then work their way up. 

 

 


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:

Venkatrajan:

I don't post here very oftern and when I do, it usually plays out something like this.

I'll come on this site and say " I like hot summer days.

A rational responder will respond with something like " there's nothing wrong with nights" or something to that effect.

And I'll say - "I never said there was - I said I like hot summer days - read my original post to see what I said - it's right there in black and white" .

And their response is "yes - but the underlying, REAL message was that you don't like nights" to be followed up by something like "and winter is a beautiful season - with fields of white snow and cold, crisp air. It's been proven that Scandanavian people live healthy lifestyles and that's attributable to the winters in part so get your facts straight.."!

And I'll comment that I like winter as well - I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't. But the poster will say ""yeah - but if you like hot, summer days, then it must mean you dislike cold, winter days - that's been our experience with previous "weather people" like yourself you have posted here saying they like hot, summer days - you can't have it both ways - clearly you're contradicting yourself".

And then I'll get the criticism that my grammer and syntax is misleading and that my posts weren't well written and blah-blah-blah.

And, of course, their mantra will have to appear somewhere in their post;

THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

And , of course, other rational responders will jump in and offer support to their brother RSS poster and weigh in with their learned and educated backgrounds and on and on it goes.

And it all started with this statement by me - "I like hot, sunny days".

And on that note, I'll shake my head - have a good chuckle - perhaps share the exchange of posts with my wife, who also has a good chuckle (and she's an atheist / physician..!!! - ) and then move on.

Seriously, the posters, who have responded to me have demonstrated time and time again that their basic reading skills are woeful.

And yet they would want to engage in a serious discussion about "something" as cerebral as the Universe and God.

They might want to start with something a little less ambitious - perhaps a lively discussion about the latest episode of "Dancing With The Stars" - and then work their way up.

 

 

 

I see no relevance in this post. Please stay on topic.

Furthermore, I still didn’t see any definition of the term "god". And stop saying "love" is indefinable, it was explained so many times from other users that it is definable; it can be explained etc.

 

Please stay on topic people.

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


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

Broncosfan wrote:
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.??

Do youbelieve that Jesus christ is the son of God? If so, then you think your belief which you claim no one can adequately define had offspring.

Why assign it a definable characteristic if it can't be defined? 

"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


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Do youbelieve that

Quote:

Do youbelieve that Jesus christ is the son of God? If so, then you think your belief which you claim no one can adequately define had offspring.

Why assign it a definable characteristic if it can't be defined?

 

 

Precisely. Furthermore, In Christianity, "god" is seen as a male. Let me elaborate on that. The "son"(Male) The "father"(Male) The "spirit"("spiritues" in Latin = Breath) So "god" in Christianity is Male, what a patriarchal "god" eh? 

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


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:

Venkatrajan:

I don't post here very oftern and when I do, it usually plays out something like this.

I'll come on this site and say " I like hot summer days.

A rational responder will respond with something like " there's nothing wrong with nights" or something to that effect.

There is a difference between enjoying one aspect of reality over another aspect of reality as a matter of opinion and believing what cannot be shown to be true over what can be shown to be true.

If you say you like hot summer days, I don't give a shit.

If you say you like believing in god, I give a shit. That's no longer the realm of "everybody is entitled to an opinion". That becomes the realm of "you might as well believe in snarfblatts" (just like god, we're not sure what they are, but it's just your opinion, right?).

Quote:

And I'll say - "I never said there was - I said I like hot summer days - read my original post to see what I said - it's right there in black and white" .

And their response is "yes - but the underlying, REAL message was that you don't like nights" to be followed up by something like "and winter is a beautiful season - with fields of white snow and cold, crisp air. It's been proven that Scandanavian people live healthy lifestyles and that's attributable to the winters in part so get your facts straight.."!

If you like hot summer days, it doesn't mean that you dislike summer nights. This is just stating opinions about what you like thugh. Stating what you believe to be true about reality is another thing.

If you say "God exists" is true, for example, you are automatically committed to the position that the claim "God does not exist" is false.

It makes sense.

Quote:

And I'll comment that I like winter as well - I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't. But the poster will say ""yeah - but if you like hot, summer days, then it must mean you dislike cold, winter days - that's been our experience with previous "weather people" like yourself you have posted here saying they like hot, summer days - you can't have it both ways - clearly you're contradicting yourself".

Nobody would say this. You can stop now.

Quote:

And then I'll get the criticism that my grammer and syntax is misleading and that my posts weren't well written and blah-blah-blah.

Insulting grammar is not an argument, this is true. But sometimes people really do have bad grammar, making them very difficult to read.

Quote:

And, of course, their mantra will have to appear somewhere in their post;

THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

I haven't accused you of making a straw man argument in this reply yet, but since you brought it up, you did make one.

Damn, huh?

Quote:

And , of course, other rational responders will jump in and offer support to their brother RSS poster and weigh in with their learned and educated backgrounds and on and on it goes.

Learned. Educated. Yes.

We base our arguments on what is known to be true about reality.

And anybody who wants to reply can do so. This is the RRS's forum. Naturally, the RRS and any of their lackeys are going to read and discuss. If I went and posted some atheist logic on a Christian website, I would be extremely surprised if they just ignored it. It's their website!

Quote:

And it all started with this statement by me - "I like hot, sunny days".

*ahem*

Straw man.

What? It is.

Quote:

And on that note, I'll shake my head - have a good chuckle - perhaps share the exchange of posts with my wife, who also has a good chuckle (and she's an atheist / physician..!!! - ) and then move on.

Being an atheist doesn't give you any kind of authority.

Being a physician doesn't give you any kind of authority.

So you're paranthetical hint at an appeal to authority is wasted.

Just chuckling doesn't prove it wrong either.

You can both chuckle until the cows come home, but that doesn't prove anyone else wrong.

We chuckle at theists, too, but we also argue.

Quote:

Seriously, the posters, who have responded to me have demonstrated time and time again that their basic reading skills are woeful.

Or maybe your communication skills are woeful? Communication is a two-way process, my friend.

Or maybe your arguments were bad?

I haven't seen anyone with poor reading skills, though I have seen some people who try to reply to what they haven't read (or thought about) at all. That's different though.

Quote:

And yet they would want to engage in a serious discussion about "something" as cerebral as the Universe and God.

We can't even discuss God until you define him. "God" is just a word until proven otherwise.

(please... nobody make any jokes along the lines of "and the word was God" lest they be promptly splattered with tomato)

Quote:

They might want to start with something a little less ambitious - perhaps a lively discussion about the latest episode of "Dancing With The Stars" - and then work their way up.

What the hell is dancing with the stars? Is that television?

I don't watch television, so I'm completely clueless when it comes to anything on it. Books are nice though. I like books. And movies are good too, when I get the chance.

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


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

NumbAndTimeless wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

Venkatrajan:

I don't post here very oftern and when I do, it usually plays out something like this.

I'll come on this site and say " I like hot summer days.

A rational responder will respond with something like " there's nothing wrong with nights" or something to that effect.

And I'll say - "I never said there was - I said I like hot summer days - read my original post to see what I said - it's right there in black and white" .

And their response is "yes - but the underlying, REAL message was that you don't like nights" to be followed up by something like "and winter is a beautiful season - with fields of white snow and cold, crisp air. It's been proven that Scandanavian people live healthy lifestyles and that's attributable to the winters in part so get your facts straight.."!

And I'll comment that I like winter as well - I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't. But the poster will say ""yeah - but if you like hot, summer days, then it must mean you dislike cold, winter days - that's been our experience with previous "weather people" like yourself you have posted here saying they like hot, summer days - you can't have it both ways - clearly you're contradicting yourself".

And then I'll get the criticism that my grammer and syntax is misleading and that my posts weren't well written and blah-blah-blah.

And, of course, their mantra will have to appear somewhere in their post;

THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

And , of course, other rational responders will jump in and offer support to their brother RSS poster and weigh in with their learned and educated backgrounds and on and on it goes.

And it all started with this statement by me - "I like hot, sunny days".

And on that note, I'll shake my head - have a good chuckle - perhaps share the exchange of posts with my wife, who also has a good chuckle (and she's an atheist / physician..!!! - ) and then move on.

Seriously, the posters, who have responded to me have demonstrated time and time again that their basic reading skills are woeful.

And yet they would want to engage in a serious discussion about "something" as cerebral as the Universe and God.

They might want to start with something a little less ambitious - perhaps a lively discussion about the latest episode of "Dancing With The Stars" - and then work their way up.

 

 

 

I see no relevance in this post. Please stay on topic.

Furthermore, I still didn’t see any definition of the term "god". And stop saying "love" is indefinable, it was explained so many times from other users that it is definable; it can be explained etc.

 

Please stay on topic people.

 Do you posters EVER read what's being written..??

I've looked at the the posts that preceded this one and I'm not sure where ANYBODY said LOVE is indefinable.

I certainly didn't say it - in fact, I actually provided a couple of definitions of LOVE so your comment couldn't have been directed at me.

So, I'n curious -please tell me exactly WHO said love is INDEFINABLE - tell me and everybody else who's reading these posts who said it and in what post.

LOOK AT ONE OF MY POSTS - I actually provided a couple of definitions of LOVE in my response.

 Ming boggling..!!!!

 But to get back on the thread - and to put this to bed once and for all - here's GOD defined.

 

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.
8.(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a.the upper balcony in a theater.
b.the spectators in this part of the balcony.

Courtesy of dictionary.reference.com.

GOD is now defined.

 

 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
What is a Supreme Being?

What is a Supreme Being?


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Defining an Unknown term

Defining an Unknown term with another Unknown term doesn't actually define any of the terms.

 Defining "god" as "Supreme Being" is defining Unknown with Unknown, which gives us no answer.

 

 

Quote:
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

 Alright this looks like this "Unknown, the creator and ruler of the universe" We can take of unknown, and put Human, we can take of Universe and put toast bread and lets see what comes out, "Human, the creator and ruler of the toast bread!!". Is this sentence defining the term Human?

 

Quote:
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.

 

Again, you’re defining something unknown with another unknown thing.

And the other definitions, well what can I say, the same, from 1 to 8. 

 Sorry but, still no correct definition of the term "god" or as you so interestingly changed to "Supreme Being".

 

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


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
"Or maybe your

"Or maybe your communication skills are woeful? Communication is a two-way process, my friend."

 

Perhaps they (communications skills) are, but when I say that I like "hot, summer / sunny days" and the other person in the conversation says "are you saying that you don't like cold, winter nights", I have to believe that the person I'm speaking to is not terribly bright.

 And at that point, I have two choices, I can discontinue talking to him / her (which is the wisest course to take).

Or continue to engage that person in conversation,  but use as many 1 syllable words as possible.

 This is a written forum - the words are there - in black and white.

If

 

 

 

 

 


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

Broncosfan wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:
Broncosfan wrote:

Venkatrajan:

I don't post here very oftern and when I do, it usually plays out something like this.

I'll come on this site and say " I like hot summer days.

A rational responder will respond with something like " there's nothing wrong with nights" or something to that effect.

And I'll say - "I never said there was - I said I like hot summer days - read my original post to see what I said - it's right there in black and white" .

And their response is "yes - but the underlying, REAL message was that you don't like nights" to be followed up by something like "and winter is a beautiful season - with fields of white snow and cold, crisp air. It's been proven that Scandanavian people live healthy lifestyles and that's attributable to the winters in part so get your facts straight.."!

And I'll comment that I like winter as well - I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't. But the poster will say ""yeah - but if you like hot, summer days, then it must mean you dislike cold, winter days - that's been our experience with previous "weather people" like yourself you have posted here saying they like hot, summer days - you can't have it both ways - clearly you're contradicting yourself".

And then I'll get the criticism that my grammer and syntax is misleading and that my posts weren't well written and blah-blah-blah.

And, of course, their mantra will have to appear somewhere in their post;

THAT'S A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

And , of course, other rational responders will jump in and offer support to their brother RSS poster and weigh in with their learned and educated backgrounds and on and on it goes.

And it all started with this statement by me - "I like hot, sunny days".

And on that note, I'll shake my head - have a good chuckle - perhaps share the exchange of posts with my wife, who also has a good chuckle (and she's an atheist / physician..!!! - ) and then move on.

Seriously, the posters, who have responded to me have demonstrated time and time again that their basic reading skills are woeful.

And yet they would want to engage in a serious discussion about "something" as cerebral as the Universe and God.

They might want to start with something a little less ambitious - perhaps a lively discussion about the latest episode of "Dancing With The Stars" - and then work their way up.

 

 

 

I see no relevance in this post. Please stay on topic.

Furthermore, I still didn’t see any definition of the term "god". And stop saying "love" is indefinable, it was explained so many times from other users that it is definable; it can be explained etc.

 

Please stay on topic people.

Do you posters EVER read what's being written..??

I've looked at the the posts that preceded this one and I'm not sure where ANYBODY said LOVE is indefinable.

I certainly didn't say it - in fact, I actually provided a couple of definitions of LOVE so your comment couldn't have been directed at me.

So, I'n curious -please tell me exactly WHO said love is INDEFINABLE - tell me and everybody else who's reading these posts who said it and in what post.

LOOK AT ONE OF MY POSTS - I actually provided a couple of definitions of LOVE in my response.

Ming boggling..!!!!

But to get back on the thread - and to put this to bed once and for all - here's GOD defined.

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.
8.(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a.the upper balcony in a theater.
b.the spectators in this part of the balcony.

Courtesy of dictionary.reference.com.

GOD is now defined.

 

 

 

Aiia defined love on page 2 of this thread as "Love is an emotion produced by bio electrochemical processes in the nervous system."

You said "Love can be experienced but not adequately defined."

You've been refuted and shown that your reading skills are lacking as well. Or you're just lying.

And I'm sure others have told you - defining a term with other undefinable terms makes no damn sense either.  

"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


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan

Broncosfan wrote:

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.
8.(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a.the upper balcony in a theater.
b.the spectators in this part of the balcony.

Courtesy of dictionary.reference.com.

GOD is now defined.

 

Dictionaries can't be used as authorities, though, because dictionaries do not state "This is inarguably what this word means", they simply state "This is how these words are commonly used."

The point of a dictionary is to inform you how people use the words. Individual words themselves have no inherent meaning.

That's why a device used to carve wooden pencils back into a point is called a "pencil sharpener" to an English speaker and a "Bleistiftspitzer" to a speaker of German.

Those sounds don't actually MEAN anything. That's just how people agree to use them. Twenty years ago, there was no such thing as "Googling", but it is now a legitimate verb. The dictionary would not have listed it beforehand because no one was using it, but now they can because it is commonly used.

This is a long way of saying that your appeal to "authority" (which was actually an appeal to popularity, though you didn't realize it) has failed.

 

But let's take the definition anyway.

 

1. Supreme being. Creator and ruler of the universe.

"Being" describes anything that exists. A supreme being is therefore something that exists and is supreme. By saying that god is a "being" is therefore just another way of saying "God exists", only you're using a noun to say it instead of a verb.

But something cannot exist without an ontological foundation, which means that it must BE something. Saying that God is a "being" doesn't tell us WHAT he is; it just tells us THAT he is.

We want to know WHAT he (she?) is.

Similarly, a creator is one who creates. So we now know what this god DOES, but we still don't know what he IS.

Suppose I said that a snarfblatt thinks, and then told you that, therefore, a snarfblatt is a thinker.

But we still don't know what a snarfblatt actually IS. We only know what a snarfblatt can allegedly do.

So again, we need to know WHAT god is.

2. Supreme being with reference to... etc etc

Same mistake outlined above.

3. Deity presiding over worldly affairs.

"Deity" is a synonym for god. We don't know what it means unless we know WHAT it is.

"Presiding", of course, only tells us what it does.

4. Supreme Being....

already refuted...

5. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

Supreme being is ruled out already.

Life is the property of being alive, but "alive" is actually a very loose term. To what extent is god "alive"? Is he alive and conscious like we are? Is he only alive like a plant is alive? Is he alive like a computer is alive? And even we accept that he is alive, we still need to know WHAT IT IS that is alive.

Snarfblatts are alive. They have life. But WHAT has life? We don't know WHAT THEY ARE.

If you are saying that god IS life itself, then why not just call it life? Doesn't "life" just mean being alive? As an atheist, I already love life without calling it god. There is no need to call it anything else unless "god" entails something more. Otherwise, you're just trying to save the term by attaching it to a clearly extant one with no real reason for doing so.

We can use the same reasoning on truth and love as we did for life.

Mind is just an emergent property of the interactions within the brain. A computer has a very simple "mind" built into it. It is capable of thought. Some computers actually can think and learn on their own and then take actions based on what they have learned---actions that no human programmed into them or taught them from the start. Does god therefore owe part of his existence to the emergent properties of these physical devices? Unless of course, when you say "mind" you mean it in the Cartesian duality sense of the word, in which case I would just lump it in with the following words.

Soul, Spirit, and "Mind" (in the dualism sense) suffer the same fate as god. We don't know WHAT they are! They cannot exist without BEING something. But what ARE they?

Principle is just a central or fundamental idea. God only acquires this status among people who already believe a god exists.

6. An image of a deity; an idol.

An image of a deity? What does God look like then?

An idol? *gasp!* Idolatry!

7. Any deified person or object.

If god is a physical person, please direct me to him.

If god is a physical object, please direct me to it.

8. Gods (theatre)

So all this time God was just a special section of the theatre! Who knew?!

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


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

aiia wrote:
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
 

 Aiia:

I know I said we were finished talking in a previous post, but when I saw this post addressed to "dude", I had to respond as this is just too funny.

 Honestly, I really thought I was exchanging emails with another adult - I sincerely didn't realize that I was (probably) communicating with a teenager.

Son, let me share something with you.

When you're as young as I suspect you are, you tend to (a) see the world in very black and white terms and (b) think you have all of the answers.

 But when you grow up, you find that (a) the world is rarely black and white - it's primarily shades of grey and (b) at about age 30 or thereabouts, you realize just how dumb you actually were as a teenager. 

"Dude", good luck in your quest for answers..!!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Condescension from a

Condescension from a Christian is always funny.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote:

Broncosfan wrote:

Aiia:

I know I said we were finished talking in a previous post, but when I saw this post addressed to "dude", I had to respond as this is just too funny.

Honestly, I really thought I was exchanging emails with another adult - I sincerely didn't realize that I was (probably) communicating with a teenager.

Son, let me share something with you.

When you're as young as I suspect you are, you tend to (a) see the world in very black and white terms and (b) think you have all of the answers.

But when you grow up, you find that (a) the world is rarely black and white - it's primarily shades of grey and (b) at about age 30 or thereabouts, you realize just how dumb you actually were as a teenager.

"Dude", good luck in your quest for answers..!!

 

Oh come on. "Dude" isn't THAT new. Teenagers are still saying it, but I know at least three people in their early 30's that use it, none of which know each other.

 

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


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote - JCgadfly - Aiia

Quote - JCgadfly - Aiia defined love on page 2 of this thread as "Love is an emotion produced by bio electrochemical processes in the nervous system

Quote - Archeopteryx - But the feeling doesn't precede the chemical. The feeling IS the chemical. That's how you feel anything.

Aaah , the paradoxes of neuroscience !!!. One says the feeling is produced by a bioelectrochemical processes or caused he means. The other declares that the "feeling is the chemical, the chemical is the feeling" , it happens simultaneously thus there is no causation.  Suggest you two revisit this and come back to us.

Even if you do, neuroscience will remain  a totally meaningless pursuit because it is the study of end result mirror images. That is all , it is only an end result impression of a thing in itself , but cannot be the thing in itself , however this doesnt deny existence of such things in themselves (Kant's ghost has embodied me suddenly, his clarity of thinking was remarkable and remains so ) :-

Lets analyse a little bit both schools of thought propounded by the atheists above

 1. If you show that it is only simultaneous and no causation exists for our feelings, then why study neuroscience at all. It only infact reinforces the notion that God created an evidence in form of a mirror reaction in the brain to show when a feeling of love is experienced.   Conclusion as per this line of thought - There is beyond doubt a feeling of love which has a mirror image end result in brain , they somehow happen simultaneously, but nobody knows the relationship between the two events. 

2. Second line of thought. Otherwise if you show causation , where does the cause start . Well here is the conventional view. We react in some manner socially and at certain times when we see someone we either have love at first sight (Care to explain this phenomenon, this disproves the above seemingly,  there seems to be  undoubtedly causation of some kind) or if we love someone already  and when we see them, this starts causation. But here again neuroscience just sits at the end of the chain waiting for mirror reaction. It in no way can define the term of love feeling. The only thing you can say convincingly with all your rational might is that when love feeling comes , it shows up in a particular brain region/ or gland  , a chemical getting secreted and maybe in terms of a quantity getting secreted. That is just an end result attribute, that is all.

  

 Now the crux of this para. God faith is very difficult to be categorised either as a feeling or a thought or an intuition . But it exists as a very complex mixture of these in a huge mass of humanity. Thus it  produces feelings of love (the end result which you can see in the brain), thoughts of universal communionship/kindness (end result you can see in the brain), it produces feling/thought of awe (end result you can see in the brain) , produces a lowering of tension leading to serenity of mind (all of this you can see the end result in mind) . Hard evidence for God.

Conclusions to this part of the debate :-

1. No other 'belief' produces such a huge mass of emotions/feelings/thoughts  other than God in such a huge mass of humanity. Neuroscientists and atheists are therefore totally hypocritical to say that a feeling of love, happiness or serenity exists , but God doesnt.  If you deny existence of God , you deny all these feelings and many more.

2.  Neuroscience is a menaingless pursuit because it analyses end result mirror images only. It never looks at things holistically. For it should take into account SIMULTANEOUSLY the affects on various parts of the Subject, the Object of love say, the Society -its relationships, this world and the Universe. A study which divides up the complexity of  human life , society, world, universe will at the most give us only few vaguely reliable statistics . But by ignoring the other facets of life other than brain regions and alike, it also ignores the amazing interrelationships in nature which point to a grand design. (There can be no greater mockery of Reductionism other than neuroscience)

 3. Scientists are unable to study the whole, so they piece it up and study 'discretely' and arrive at conclusions which are just few facts about a small part of an otherwise giant , humungous Intelligence. 

Quote - Archeopteryx -

This is a stupid claim. Essentially what you're saying here is that man and his rational thinking are fallible, and therefore man can and does make mistakes, and therefore man is sometimes wrong, and therefore man should not be assumed to always be correct.

Well, yeah. So what? Just because man is fallible and can be wrong doesn't mean that he will always be wrong or that he is utterly incapable of being correct. But I'm not stopping at just that point.

My dear. If you think that you are rational, then that is the most irrational thing to say. Why ? Because reason is a construct of the mind to please the Ego. It is just an excuse to enable us to believe what we want to believe to be truth. Reason is based on facts you might say , but we say facts themselves reflect only a certain level of truth in nature. We humans assemble facts by ignoring higher levels of truths which are intuitively realized.  So any reason based on these lower level of truths cannot be relied upon. Reasons are half truths

Here your other quote also  comes into play . "A claim is either true or it is not true. There is no such thing as being true AND false. This is a fact."  .  

Totally erroneous, my dear.  There is no absolute finality to the fact or truth that you claim to be true.  There are varying levels of truths. Meaning what is true at a certain level is falsified at another level.

What are higher levels of truths ?

All facts that we assemble or all scientific enquiry starts from the premise of subject/object duality.

You identify yourself as separate from others in Subject/Object duality and our body lives in this illusion for our entire life. The moment subject/object duality comes in, you start looking for reasons for all around including nature.  

There are various levels of truth.  When you dream , it is the first level of truth. This level gets falsified when you wake up. We foolishly believe this to be reality. It is not . It is only another stage of the illusion.  In dream , we have isolated and personal thoughts  and dream sequences . When we wake up, we become part of a very highly coordinated, choreographed sequence of drama events which we call our life. This is not reality at all. Read on. An analogy to explain.

You see a TV screen or a theatre screen and a show, get engrossed into it deeply, become part of the scenes, the emotions , the thrills etc, but when the TV shuts off , you come back to so called reality.  Within the show that goes on , you become part of a  sequence of events in a temporal manner. Meaning you enter the Tv screen as a character , a silent witness , and part of that space./time also. Think for a moment , whenever you have got deeply engrosed in a TV show or a movie, havent you lost all impressions of the things that surrounds the TV. The mind gets 'illusioned' so to speak to be part of a show.

The waking up stage of our life is just that , it is a lifelong TV show  in a TV screen whose edges stretch to the corners of our eyes, that is all.

The fact that we 'see' people around us , 'hear' things , ' touch' others  , 'smell' things leaves us strongly convinced without an iota of doubt that this is reality. Infact no one thinks otherwise easily.

However the fact that there is a higher stage of existence in which all subject/object duailty completely disappears. In this stage , there is only one Reality , that of infinite nothingness. There is no duailty of any kind. You are one with the world/ universe, the world/universe is one with you.  You merge with the divine supernatural substratum here which cannt be defined.

The fact was first discovered by Indian sages and saints who were really the most enlightehned philosophers more than 4000 years ago.  Reailty and Knowledge merge into one indivisible, infinte _____.

There is nothing to learn after that , nothing to see after this, no interrelationships of any kind.  

 The knowledge of this level of consciousnes spread like wildfire amongst Buddhists and Taoists.

This realization of all at once reality/truth/Final Knowledge  comes after one concentrates on the Self in prolonged meditation. It is an Intuition of awe inspiring proportions when it happens.  You merge with all around in a flash and are completely totally aware about it.  There are hundreds of living examples of people who have 'experienced' this.

This third level of truth is the realm of the supernatural divinity , God.  This higher level of truth is God , is final knowledge , is reality all merged into one . But cannot be described to you or defined.

We live our daily lives in God's substratum without realizing it. My favourite example is that of a living human cell. We have billions of it in us. At a cellular level a cell if it were to think will view itself as separate and discretely with another cell. If it had intellect , this will develop into Ego and all its false reasons/Science etc. However the fact is that on a gross level the Cell is part of the being called Human.But it fails to realize this.  At a cellular level , the truth is that it is separate and not part of any being. At a human being level, this is False, it is part of a being.

See what I mean by the various levels of truths. At one level what is Truth is false at another level. Thus we humans as a separate being are true separately if we view ourselves separately, but the moment we realize we are part of a a humungous being (Read-God) , the truth  becomes false and a higher truth is realized.

Cheers . More later

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


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

Venkatrajan wrote:
Quote - JCgadfly - Aiia defined love on page 2 of this thread as "Love is an emotion produced by bio electrochemical processes in the nervous system

Quote - Archeopteryx - But the feeling doesn't precede the chemical. The feeling IS the chemical. That's how you feel anything.

Aaah , the paradoxes of neuroscience !!!. One says the feeling is produced by a bioelectrochemical processes or caused he means. The other declares that the "feeling is the chemical, the chemical is the feeling" , it happens simultaneously thus there is no causation.  Suggest you two revisit this and come back to us.

They both argue emotions as resulting from physical processes. No idea where you got your weird conclusion.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Even if you do, neuroscience will remain  a totally meaningless pursuit because it is the study of end result mirror images. That is all , it is only an end result impression of a thing in itself , but cannot be the thing in itself , however this doesnt deny existence of such things in themselves (Kant's ghost has embodied me suddenly, his clarity of thinking was remarkable and remains so ) :-

Gibberish.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Lets analyse a little bit both schools of thought propounded by the atheists above

 1. If you show that it is only simultaneous and no causation exists for our feelings, then why study neuroscience at all. It only infact reinforces the notion that God created an evidence in form of a mirror reaction in the brain to show when a feeling of love is experienced.   Conclusion as per this line of thought - There is beyond doubt a feeling of love which has a mirror image end result in brain , they somehow happen simultaneously, but nobody knows the relationship between the two events.

How could you get the meaning of those short sentences so wildly wrong? You're begging the question for a dualist view, which is simply not even implied in their comments. Nobody used the word "simultaneous," as if to suggest a physical and "spiritual" event correlated by coincedence. Emotions are the result of physical (electrochemical) interactions -- that is a sufficient (and supported) explanation and doesn't benefit a bit from unsubstantiated dualistic claims.

Venkatrajan wrote:
2. Second line of thought. Otherwise if you show causation , where does the cause start . Well here is the conventional view. We react in some manner socially and at certain times when we see someone we either have love at first sight (Care to explain this phenomenon, this disproves the above seemingly,  there seems to be  undoubtedly causation of some kind) or if we love someone already  and when we see them, this starts causation. But here again neuroscience just sits at the end of the chain waiting for mirror reaction. It in no way can define the term of love feeling. The only thing you can say convincingly with all your rational might is that when love feeling comes , it shows up in a particular brain region/ or gland  , a chemical getting secreted and maybe in terms of a quantity getting secreted. That is just an end result attribute, that is all.

There have been scores of documentaries on TV demonstrating the physiological causes of love and infatuation. And why draw an arbitrary line at "love at first sight" as if it somehow implied an important distinction that excluded physiology?

Venkatrajan wrote:
Now the crux of this para. God faith is very difficult to be categorised either as a feeling or a thought or an intuition .

It's a misapprehension supported by fear or a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Venkatrajan wrote:
But it exists as a very complex mixture of these in a huge mass of humanity.

Which is why it's most popular in the uneducated and desperate.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Thus it  produces feelings of love (the end result which you can see in the brain),

No, resulting from the brain. Demonstrate otherwise. I'd love to see it.

Venkatrajan wrote:
thoughts of universal communionship/kindness (end result you can see in the brain), it produces feling/thought of awe (end result you can see in the brain) , produces a lowering of tension leading to serenity of mind (all of this you can see the end result in mind) . Hard evidence for God.

Nope, you can swap in god, or anything else, and it will add nothing to the physiological explanation of emotions.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Conclusions to this part of the debate :-

1. No other 'belief' produces such a huge mass of emotions/feelings/thoughts  other than God in such a huge mass of humanity.

Appeal from emotion fallacy.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Neuroscientists and atheists are therefore totally hypocritical to say that a feeling of love, happiness or serenity exists , but God doesnt. 

Non-sequitur.

Venkatrajan wrote:
If you deny existence of God , you deny all these feelings and many more.

You haven't established a connection, nor have you demonstrated the existence of any gods, nor dualism.

Venkatrajan wrote:
2.  Neuroscience is a menaingless pursuit because it analyses end result mirror images only. It never looks at things holistically. For it should take into account SIMULTANEOUSLY the affects on various parts of the Subject, the Object of love say, the Society -its relationships, this world and the Universe.

Bollocks.

Venkatrajan wrote:
A study which divides up the complexity of  human life , society, world, universe will at the most give us only few vaguely reliable statistics . But by ignoring the other facets of life other than brain regions and alike, it also ignores the amazing interrelationships in nature which point to a grand design. (There can be no greater mockery of Reductionism other than neuroscience)

Bullflop.

Venkatrajan wrote:
 3. Scientists are unable to study the whole, so they piece it up and study 'discretely' and arrive at conclusions which are just few facts about a small part of an otherwise giant , humungous Intelligence. 

They eliminate variables until they determine the effects of single factors, then try to figure out how the pieces fit, then test their hypotheses to determine their validity.

Here's what you do:

1. Assert.

2. Complain about science.

3. Assert again.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Quote - Archeopteryx -

This is a stupid claim. Essentially what you're saying here is that man and his rational thinking are fallible, and therefore man can and does make mistakes, and therefore man is sometimes wrong, and therefore man should not be assumed to always be correct.

Well, yeah. So what? Just because man is fallible and can be wrong doesn't mean that he will always be wrong or that he is utterly incapable of being correct. But I'm not stopping at just that point.

My dear. If you think that you are rational, then that is the most irrational thing to say. Why ? Because reason is a construct of the mind to please the Ego. It is just an excuse to enable us to believe what we want to believe to be truth.

Reason is based on facts you might say , but we say facts themselves reflect only a certain level of truth in nature. We humans assemble facts by ignoring higher levels of truths which are intuitively realized.  So any reason based on these lower level of truths cannot be relied upon. Reasons are half truths

Reason and intuition are valid for decisions in different circumstances, but what you advocate fits the category of wishful thinking.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Here your other quote also  comes into play . "A claim is either true or it is not true. There is no such thing as being true AND false. This is a fact."  .  

Totally erroneous, my dear.  There is no absolute finality to the fact or truth that you claim to be true.  There are varying levels of truths. Meaning what is true at a certain level is falsified at another level.

No, reasoned arguments can be falsified with new data -- but they are based on data. Not loosey-goosey "whatever!" BS.

Venkatrajan wrote:
What are higher levels of truths ?

All facts that we assemble or all scientific enquiry starts from the premise of subject/object duality.

You identify yourself as separate from others in Subject/Object duality and our body lives in this illusion for our entire life. The moment subject/object duality comes in, you start looking for reasons for all around including nature.  

Garbage.

Venkatrajan wrote:
There are various levels of truth.  When you dream , it is the first level of truth. This level gets falsified when you wake up. We foolishly believe this to be reality. It is not . It is only another stage of the illusion.  In dream , we have isolated and personal thoughts  and dream sequences . When we wake up, we become part of a very highly coordinated, choreographed sequence of drama events which we call our life. This is not reality at all. Read on. An analogy to explain.

Nihilistic garbage.

[Snipped regurgitated eastern bullshit.]


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

Venkatrajan wrote:

Quote - JCgadfly - Aiia defined love on page 2 of this thread as "Love is an emotion produced by bio electrochemical processes in the nervous system

Quote - Archeopteryx - But the feeling doesn't precede the chemical. The feeling IS the chemical. That's how you feel anything.

Aaah , the paradoxes of neuroscience !!!. One says the feeling is produced by a bioelectrochemical processes or caused he means. The other declares that the "feeling is the chemical, the chemical is the feeling" , it happens simultaneously thus there is no causation. Suggest you two revisit this and come back to us.

Even if you do, neuroscience will remain a totally meaningless pursuit because it is the study of end result mirror images. That is all , it is only an end result impression of a thing in itself , but cannot be the thing in itself , however this doesnt deny existence of such things in themselves (Kant's ghost has embodied me suddenly, his clarity of thinking was remarkable and remains so ) :-

Lets analyse a little bit both schools of thought propounded by the atheists above

1. If you show that it is only simultaneous and no causation exists for our feelings, then why study neuroscience at all. It only infact reinforces the notion that God created an evidence in form of a mirror reaction in the brain to show when a feeling of love is experienced. Conclusion as per this line of thought - There is beyond doubt a feeling of love which has a mirror image end result in brain , they somehow happen simultaneously, but nobody knows the relationship between the two events.

2. Second line of thought. Otherwise if you show causation , where does the cause start . Well here is the conventional view. We react in some manner socially and at certain times when we see someone we either have love at first sight (Care to explain this phenomenon, this disproves the above seemingly, there seems to be undoubtedly causation of some kind) or if we love someone already and when we see them, this starts causation. But here again neuroscience just sits at the end of the chain waiting for mirror reaction. It in no way can define the term of love feeling. The only thing you can say convincingly with all your rational might is that when love feeling comes , it shows up in a particular brain region/ or gland , a chemical getting secreted and maybe in terms of a quantity getting secreted. That is just an end result attribute, that is all.

 

Now the crux of this para. God faith is very difficult to be categorised either as a feeling or a thought or an intuition . But it exists as a very complex mixture of these in a huge mass of humanity. Thus it produces feelings of love (the end result which you can see in the brain), thoughts of universal communionship/kindness (end result you can see in the brain), it produces feling/thought of awe (end result you can see in the brain) , produces a lowering of tension leading to serenity of mind (all of this you can see the end result in mind) . Hard evidence for God.

Conclusions to this part of the debate :-

1. No other 'belief' produces such a huge mass of emotions/feelings/thoughts other than God in such a huge mass of humanity. Neuroscientists and atheists are therefore totally hypocritical to say that a feeling of love, happiness or serenity exists , but God doesnt. If you deny existence of God , you deny all these feelings and many more.

2. Neuroscience is a menaingless pursuit because it analyses end result mirror images only. It never looks at things holistically. For it should take into account SIMULTANEOUSLY the affects on various parts of the Subject, the Object of love say, the Society -its relationships, this world and the Universe. A study which divides up the complexity of human life , society, world, universe will at the most give us only few vaguely reliable statistics . But by ignoring the other facets of life other than brain regions and alike, it also ignores the amazing interrelationships in nature which point to a grand design. (There can be no greater mockery of Reductionism other than neuroscience)

3. Scientists are unable to study the whole, so they piece it up and study 'discretely' and arrive at conclusions which are just few facts about a small part of an otherwise giant , humungous Intelligence.

Quote - Archeopteryx -

This is a stupid claim. Essentially what you're saying here is that man and his rational thinking are fallible, and therefore man can and does make mistakes, and therefore man is sometimes wrong, and therefore man should not be assumed to always be correct.

Well, yeah. So what? Just because man is fallible and can be wrong doesn't mean that he will always be wrong or that he is utterly incapable of being correct. But I'm not stopping at just that point.

My dear. If you think that you are rational, then that is the most irrational thing to say. Why ? Because reason is a construct of the mind to please the Ego. It is just an excuse to enable us to believe what we want to believe to be truth. Reason is based on facts you might say , but we say facts themselves reflect only a certain level of truth in nature. We humans assemble facts by ignoring higher levels of truths which are intuitively realized. So any reason based on these lower level of truths cannot be relied upon. Reasons are half truths

Here your other quote also comes into play . "A claim is either true or it is not true. There is no such thing as being true AND false. This is a fact." .

Totally erroneous, my dear. There is no absolute finality to the fact or truth that you claim to be true. There are varying levels of truths. Meaning what is true at a certain level is falsified at another level.

What are higher levels of truths ?

All facts that we assemble or all scientific enquiry starts from the premise of subject/object duality.

You identify yourself as separate from others in Subject/Object duality and our body lives in this illusion for our entire life. The moment subject/object duality comes in, you start looking for reasons for all around including nature.

There are various levels of truth. When you dream , it is the first level of truth. This level gets falsified when you wake up. We foolishly believe this to be reality. It is not . It is only another stage of the illusion. In dream , we have isolated and personal thoughts and dream sequences . When we wake up, we become part of a very highly coordinated, choreographed sequence of drama events which we call our life. This is not reality at all. Read on. An analogy to explain.

You see a TV screen or a theatre screen and a show, get engrossed into it deeply, become part of the scenes, the emotions , the thrills etc, but when the TV shuts off , you come back to so called reality. Within the show that goes on , you become part of a sequence of events in a temporal manner. Meaning you enter the Tv screen as a character , a silent witness , and part of that space./time also. Think for a moment , whenever you have got deeply engrosed in a TV show or a movie, havent you lost all impressions of the things that surrounds the TV. The mind gets 'illusioned' so to speak to be part of a show.

The waking up stage of our life is just that , it is a lifelong TV show in a TV screen whose edges stretch to the corners of our eyes, that is all.

The fact that we 'see' people around us , 'hear' things , ' touch' others , 'smell' things leaves us strongly convinced without an iota of doubt that this is reality. Infact no one thinks otherwise easily.

However the fact that there is a higher stage of existence in which all subject/object duailty completely disappears. In this stage , there is only one Reality , that of infinite nothingness. There is no duailty of any kind. You are one with the world/ universe, the world/universe is one with you. You merge with the divine supernatural substratum here which cannt be defined.

The fact was first discovered by Indian sages and saints who were really the most enlightehned philosophers more than 4000 years ago. Reailty and Knowledge merge into one indivisible, infinte _____.

There is nothing to learn after that , nothing to see after this, no interrelationships of any kind.

The knowledge of this level of consciousnes spread like wildfire amongst Buddhists and Taoists.

This realization of all at once reality/truth/Final Knowledge comes after one concentrates on the Self in prolonged meditation. It is an Intuition of awe inspiring proportions when it happens. You merge with all around in a flash and are completely totally aware about it. There are hundreds of living examples of people who have 'experienced' this.

This third level of truth is the realm of the supernatural divinity , God. This higher level of truth is God , is final knowledge , is reality all merged into one . But cannot be described to you or defined.

We live our daily lives in God's substratum without realizing it. My favourite example is that of a living human cell. We have billions of it in us. At a cellular level a cell if it were to think will view itself as separate and discretely with another cell. If it had intellect , this will develop into Ego and all its false reasons/Science etc. However the fact is that on a gross level the Cell is part of the being called Human.But it fails to realize this. At a cellular level , the truth is that it is separate and not part of any being. At a human being level, this is False, it is part of a being.

See what I mean by the various levels of truths. At one level what is Truth is false at another level. Thus we humans as a separate being are true separately if we view ourselves separately, but the moment we realize we are part of a a humungous being (Read-God) , the truth becomes false and a higher truth is realized.

Cheers . More later

Hey Venk,

My only argument was with the Christian who claimed no one had provided an adequate definiton of love - Aiia's was the first one I saw.

The fact (no matter what the cause) is that the emotion of love has physical origins. No supernatural stuff is involved here.

The fact that I may have been incorrect doesn't change that. I don't claim to be an expert in any field. That's why I come here - to learn.

Then again, "God did it" in whatever form you believe God takes is so much easier to say and believe. No need for thought.

The statement "We are all part of God" still leaves the question of "Which God?" unanswered. Some groups (Christians, Muslims, Jews) are stuck with one. Other groups can just pick the one they like from the pantheon they follow.

Doesn't make any of them real or "God did it" a valid explanation.

"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


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
3 Pages of debate.

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

                                                       

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

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


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
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 ;(.

I'm not going to waste my time providing you with a definition of God as a simple google search using the key words definition + god will provide you with thousands of links I'm sure.

But I do have a question for you.

 What exactly is the point of your thread ? I don't believe in unicorns so I couldn't care less how somebody, who does, defines them.

Jesus Christ Himself could provide you with a perfect definition, but if you don't believe in God, then what posible difference could His response make?

It just seems like such a silly and pointless waste of time spending countless hours discussing something that you don't believe in.  

My grandmother used to tell me that God must love crazy people as He made enough of them.

 I think she was right .


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
NumbAndTimeless wrote: 3

NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

                                                       

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

 

A definition of God i.e. Supreme Being was given to you. The source was a dictionary, whose sole purpose is to provide definitions of words.

 The dictionary can't be responsible if you don't like what they have to say. Perhaps the dictionary could ask everybody on the planet to approve each and every definition they include in their text so that 6,000,000 people can agree on something.

Would that be your solution?

You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

If you don't like it - that's your problem.

 


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
NumbAndTimeless wrote: 3

NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

                                                       

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

 Would that be your solution?

If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
NumbAndTimeless wrote: 3

NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

 

                                                       

 

 

To bad, no definition till now was given.

One more thing.

Whoever the Theist was who said that many rational responders don't even read the posts or understand them was right as evidenced by your comment "to bad, no definition was given".


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Wrong - a definition

Quote:
Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 Bloody Funny!. So you are defining the term "god" with the term "Supreme Being"? Waow, so defining unknown with unknown. Funny.

 At least try a bit harder. The answer begs for the same question about the term "god", define "Supreme Being" please.

 

Quote:
According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

 Yes according to the words popular USE of the term. Get that in your head Sherlock.

 

Quote:
Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

 Perhaps... Yes, Yes I agree your funny.

 

Quote:
If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

No, don't get me wrong, i love you defintion. Its very flashy and sounds like something very important. HOWEVER it's not telling me the actually definition of the term "god". What is "god"? You say "Supreme Being", and the cycle goes again, Define "Supreme Being" please. 

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


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u wrote:

rowdyyates2u wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time providing you with a definition of God as a simple google search using the key words definition + god will provide you with thousands of links I'm sure.

But I do have a question for you.

What exactly is the point of your thread ? I don't believe in unicorns so I couldn't care less how somebody, who does, defines them.

Jesus Christ Himself could provide you with a perfect definition, but if you don't believe in God, then what posible difference could His response make?

It just seems like such a silly and pointless waste of time spending countless hours discussing something that you don't believe in.

My grandmother used to tell me that God must love crazy people as He made enough of them.

I think she was right .

 

The point is that you can't believe in something unless you know WHAT you believe in.

Unicorns have a definition, a physical description. We understand what unicorns are made of and what their components are. Just like god, we can't be entirely certain that they DON'T exist, but we at least can say something about WHAT they are.

We don't know what god is, we don't know what he looks like, we don't know what he's made of, or what any of his components are. God is just a word.

I'm fond of using "snarfblatts" lately. Snarblatts exist and are very powerful. They are not gods, but they are not people either. They're nice, though, and they would never hurt you.

See.. this kind of description could easily persuade someone that a snarfblatt is real because the "what" is implied, because properties cannot exist without a "what" to be attached to, and actions cannot be taken without a "what" to take them.

But... we still don't really know WHAT snarfblatts ARE. So we can't believe in them. We can only believe in the qualities and actions used to describe them.

 

You can't believe in God because you don't know what he is. That's the point.

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


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u wrote:   A

rowdyyates2u wrote:

 

A definition of God i.e. Supreme Being was given to you. The source was a dictionary, whose sole purpose is to provide definitions of words.

The dictionary can't be responsible if you don't like what they have to say. Perhaps the dictionary could ask everybody on the planet to approve each and every definition they include in their text so that 6,000,000 people can agree on something.

Would that be your solution?

You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

If you don't like it - that's your problem.

 

As has been explained at least twice in this thread already, dictionaries provide the POPULAR USAGE.

Words themselves don't mean anything. They are just a series of noises you make with your mouth, nose, and throat. The sound you produce when you say "run" has no meaning to a speaker of Japanese. And even if it did, it wouldn't be the same meaning.

And what does "run" mean anyway? You can run a marathon. A car can run. A faucet can run. Mascara can run. In baseball, you can score a run. All these meanings came about because that's how people CHOSE to use the series of sounds that make up "run".

Words don't mean anything until people make up things for them to mean.

It's appropriate that you appeal to the dictionary, though, because it's obvious that the word "God", llike all other words in the dictionary, was made up by man to serve man's purposes. 

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u

rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

Would that be your solution?

If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

As has been said - defining unkown terms with unknown terms is useless.

Your attitude works so well for so many other things though. An example follows.

"What is faith?"

"Red."

"That makes no sense."

"You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you. If you don't like it that's your problem. "

"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


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
NumbAndTimeless

NumbAndTimeless wrote:

Quote:
Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 Define "Supreme Being" please. 

You want Supreme Being defined? 

That's easy - GOD.

      I have an idea. Why don't you pretend for just  a moment that you believe in God. The write a definition and respond to your original post i.e. yourself and you'll get the exact definition you're looking for,


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

 

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

Would that be your solution?

If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

As has been said - defining unkown terms with unknown terms is useless.

Your attitude works so well for so many other things though. An example follows.

"What is faith?"

"Red."

"That makes no sense."

"You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you. If you don't like it that's your problem. "

 

 That was the point that the original poster was trying to make that none of you genius' could grasp.

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u

rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

Quote:
Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 Define "Supreme Being" please. 

You want Supreme Being defined? 

That's easy - GOD.

      I have an idea. Why don't you pretend for just  a moment that you believe in God. The write a definition and respond to your original post i.e. yourself and you'll get the exact definition you're looking for,

No, that's circular. And it describes nothing. Do you know what a description of something sounds like?

There is a pencil on the table.

Where is it? On the table. What is it? A pencil. What color is it? Yellow, mainly. What is it made of? Wood and graphite, if it's like most pencils I've seen.

Pretend I've never seen a pencil or a table. They've never been described or demonstrated to me. A person with a knowledge of them could explain them, describe them, say what they are and are not, and demonstrate a the difference that would be made by the existence of either.

Again, what is it you believe in? 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u

rowdyyates2u wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

 

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

Would that be your solution?

If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

As has been said - defining unkown terms with unknown terms is useless.

Your attitude works so well for so many other things though. An example follows.

"What is faith?"

"Red."

"That makes no sense."

"You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you. If you don't like it that's your problem. "

 

 That was the point that the original poster was trying to make that none of you genius' could grasp.

 

 

 No, the OP was saying definitions of god steal from materialism while claiming it's immaterial or are internally contradictory. And all you're agreeing with in that post is a category error.


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:

A definition of God i.e. Supreme Being was given to you. The source was a dictionary, whose sole purpose is to provide definitions of words.

The dictionary can't be responsible if you don't like what they have to say. Perhaps the dictionary could ask everybody on the planet to approve each and every definition they include in their text so that 6,000,000 people can agree on something.

Would that be your solution?

You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

If you don't like it - that's your problem.

Words themselves don't mean anything. They are just a series of noises you make with your mouth, nose, and throat.

Words don't mean anything until people make up things for them to mean.

It's appropriate that you appeal to the dictionary, though, because it's obvious that the word "God", llike all other words in the dictionary, was made up by man to serve man's purposes. 

  

If words don't mean anything, then how the hell does one respond to this thread? Should I communicate a definition  of God by smoke signals?

"Words" don't mean anything until people make up things for words to mean'.

Like God and Supreme Being, for example.

"that the word "God", llike all other words in the dictionary, was made up by man to serve man's purposes. "

 And all this time, I thought we made up words for the benefits of ants and other insects.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 Please keep the comments coming.


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

Quote:
Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 Define "Supreme Being" please. 

You want Supreme Being defined? 

That's easy - GOD.

      I have an idea. Why don't you pretend for just  a moment that you believe in God. The write a definition and respond to your original post i.e. yourself and you'll get the exact definition you're looking for,

 

 

Again, what is it you believe in? 

God.


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

Would that be your solution?

If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

As has been said - defining unkown terms with unknown terms is useless.

Your attitude works so well for so many other things though. An example follows.

"What is faith?"

"Red."

"That makes no sense."

"You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you. If you don't like it that's your problem. "

 That was the point that the original poster was trying to make that none of you genius' could grasp.

 No, the OP was saying definitions of god steal from materialism while claiming it's immaterial or are internally contradictory. And all you're agreeing with in that post is a category error.

The original poster I'm referring to is SRV Strat  who was making the point (I think) that while there are definitions of God and love, for example, they're inadequate in his opinion in terms of fully defining what they refer to.

Original was a poor choice of word on my part. Fortunately, I discovered this evening that words don't mean anything so no harm - no foul.

But there was nothing wrong with his grammer or syntax as a couple of RSS  responders pointed out. The point he was making was crystal clear to me. 

 Perhaps he should have tapped out his response in morse code instead of words to the people who didn't understand him.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u

rowdyyates2u wrote:
magilum wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

3 Pages of debate.

The arguments which were put forward to define "god" were very fast countered with other arguments and proven wrong. There are still attempts, but poorly structured and without any logical sense.

Theists, let me sum up. You tried to define "god" with mixing with the term love. This was disproved. Then surprisingly you changed the term "god" to "Supreme Being" with a deliberate attempt to define 1 unknown word with another unknown word. This was done before as wel.

Now, I hope you learn from your mistakes and try in other ways to define the term "god".

To be honest, the only reason i opened this topic, is because i couldn't believe that people actually have faith and give their life for something which they can't even define, its unknown to them.

To bad, no definition till now was given.

Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

According to the poster, the source was an online dictionary, whose sole purpose is to define words.

Perhaps each dictionary should seek agreement from every person on the planet i.e. 6,000,000,000 in the hopes that they can reach a consensus re each word.

Would that be your solution?

If you don't like the definition - that's your problem. But you asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

As has been said - defining unkown terms with unknown terms is useless.

Your attitude works so well for so many other things though. An example follows.

"What is faith?"

"Red."

"That makes no sense."

"You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you. If you don't like it that's your problem. "

 That was the point that the original poster was trying to make that none of you genius' could grasp.

 No, the OP was saying definitions of god steal from materialism while claiming it's immaterial or are internally contradictory. And all you're agreeing with in that post is a category error.

The original poster I'm referring to is SRV Strat  who was making the point (I think) that while there are definitions of God and love, for example, they're inadequate in his opinion in terms of fully defining what they refer to.

Original was a poor choice of word on my part. Fortunately, I discovered this evening that words don't mean anything so no harm - no foul.

But there was nothing wrong with his grammer or syntax as a couple of RSS  responders pointed out. The point he was making was crystal clear to me. 

 Perhaps he should have tapped out his response in morse code instead of words to the people who didn't understand him.

He's not quoted anywhere in this exchange, nor is he the original poster of this thread, so I guess I'm supposed to share the meaning of your reference on some intuitive level. Oddly, I think this trivial point demonstrates the impasse at which we now find ourselves, as you seem unaware of the meaning communicated by the words you use. For instance, in thinking that 'god' and 'supreme being' self-evidently refer to something.

The physiological manifestation of an emotion like love can be demonstrated and explained, but the key here is that it is first demonstrated. You have a thing, and then you wonder what this thing is, and you try to figure it out. For the concept of god, you have nothing. You don't have a physical manifestation, or even a defiance of natural physical principles, to suggest that there's a thing to be explored. When you look at the explanations given, that god is supernatural, immaterial, outside the universe, etc., you don't even have a concept to discuss; just an exclusion of all that actually is demonstrated.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u

rowdyyates2u wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:

A definition of God i.e. Supreme Being was given to you. The source was a dictionary, whose sole purpose is to provide definitions of words.

The dictionary can't be responsible if you don't like what they have to say. Perhaps the dictionary could ask everybody on the planet to approve each and every definition they include in their text so that 6,000,000 people can agree on something.

Would that be your solution?

You asked for a definition and a definition was given to you.

If you don't like it - that's your problem.

Words themselves don't mean anything. They are just a series of noises you make with your mouth, nose, and throat.

Words don't mean anything until people make up things for them to mean.

It's appropriate that you appeal to the dictionary, though, because it's obvious that the word "God", llike all other words in the dictionary, was made up by man to serve man's purposes. 

  

If words don't mean anything, then how the hell does one respond to this thread? Should I communicate a definition  of God by smoke signals?

"Words" don't mean anything until people make up things for words to mean'.

Like God and Supreme Being, for example.

"that the word "God", llike all other words in the dictionary, was made up by man to serve man's purposes. "

 And all this time, I thought we made up words for the benefits of ants and other insects.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 Please keep the comments coming.

Are you familiar with that famous painting of a pipe? Under the image, it's written, "This is not a pipe."

Words are symbolic and meant to correspond to a thing or concept. Things don't exist, and things don't change, dependent on whether we have words for them or not. We could give something a word, and have a common definition based on a total misconception of the thing itself. Dictionaries are continually changed to add new words, but also to update the definitions of existing words to match the popular understanding and use of them. That being said, dictionaries aren't a detailed study of any topic, just a quick gloss over a word's meaning, so their bearing on a specific topic is limited in its scope.

It's been said, on the RRS show I think, that you could ask 100 believers what god is, and get back 100 different answers; which has been demonstrated by many of the theist posters to this board. I don't know what the point of the original post was, but I do find it odd that such a supposedly obvious and necessary concept, according to believers, actually ends up being pretty vague and insubstantial when they're asked to explain it.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u

rowdyyates2u wrote:
magilum wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

Quote:
Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 Define "Supreme Being" please. 

You want Supreme Being defined? 

That's easy - GOD.

      I have an idea. Why don't you pretend for just  a moment that you believe in God. The write a definition and respond to your original post i.e. yourself and you'll get the exact definition you're looking for,

 

 

Again, what is it you believe in? 

God.

I noticed you chopped off everything but the last line of my post just to offer that bit of circular reasoning again. If you provide a circular definition again, I'm going to ignore you and assume you're incapable of conversation.


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
magilum wrote:
rowdyyates2u wrote:
NumbAndTimeless wrote:

Quote:
Wrong - a definition was given to you i.e. Supreme Being.

 Define "Supreme Being" please. 

You want Supreme Being defined? 

That's easy - GOD.

      I have an idea. Why don't you pretend for just  a moment that you believe in God. The write a definition and respond to your original post i.e. yourself and you'll get the exact definition you're looking for,

Again, what is it you believe in? 

God.

I noticed you chopped off everything but the last line of my post just to offer that bit of circular reasoning again. If you provide a circular definition again, I'm going to ignore you and assume you're incapable of conversation.

Well, in view of the fact that words are meaningless (according to a couple of the other RSS posters) coupled with the fact that if I were to use a particular word in my response that you weren't familiar with, you couldn't use a dictionary to ascertain its meaning (because dictionaries are only written by men / women and are solely intended for the use of man / woman (mind you, even when you know its meaning, it's still meaningless because it's just a word) tripled with the fact that some of us (I won't mention any names) have some fundamental reading skills, I don't see the point in carrying on this "meaningless wordy" discussion,  do you?

Lastly, for those of you who are into grammer and syntax, yes - the above is what's commonly referred to as a run on sentence!

Good luck and God / Supreme Being bless.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u wrote: Well,

rowdyyates2u wrote:
Well, in view of the fact that words are meaningless (according to a couple of the other RSS posters) [...]

I addressed this, you ignored it. Refer back to it and continue the conversation, or don't, and keep harping on the same refuted point. If I see repetition of the "since words are meaningless" line that fails to address my refutation, I'll assume you're incapable of conversation.