RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:14:31 PM)
[8D] There is the potential that I am not using keyboard at all. You cannot prove or disprove this. I do not support or deny God with words. They are too limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaxy

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I do not fear death; it is change, hidden behind a term that has been deemed scary. Death is scary. It is the termination of everything we know, in addition to the termination of our awareness of it. One of the primary reasons people can say it isn't scary is because of the metaphysical presumption that it is "only change"...and that notion is wrought from a belief in a deity and, (usually) thereby, a belief in some concept of afterlife. quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I saw a city, impossible for any man to have made, and was not the only witness to the sighting; that was evidence enough for me. Impossible based on your understanding of anthropology, physics and architecture, perhaps? That sounds to me like evidence of something you could not understand. It is only the a priori existence of a deity concept in the first place that would lead you to make the inference of what your incredulity meant. Evidence of something 'unbelievable' is only that: evidence of something unbelievable. It is not evidence for whatever metaphysical theory used to concoct an imaginative answer for why that very thing is unbelievable.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic [8D] There is the potential that I am not using keyboard at all. You cannot prove or disprove this. These are pretty and philosophically fluffy things to say, but you don't function under this notion in your daily life (nor do the rest of us). quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic I do not support or deny God with words. They are too limited. Only because it's convenient to place an implausible concept in a realm beyond human communication to make it a prime candidate for special pleading.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:26:26 PM)
Out of interest pyro why is there potential for the keyboard to not be there?

NorthernGent -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:26:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic There is the potential that I am not using keyboard at all. Yes first advanced by George Berkeley but then you would have to argue that minds and the ideas in them are all that exists - and if you're going to argue that then what exactly are you doing on this message board (as all encounters will simply be a figment of your imagination due to no physical world existing). Best thing you can do is smash your keyboard with a hammer and then try engaging in this conversation - you will soon see that your keyboard does in fact exist as a communication tool and you were using it. In contrast: there is nothing you can do to invoke god - it is an idea; purely metaphysical rather than physical.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:32:32 PM)
I'm sorry pyro i'll be back in half an hour for you reply ,great quiz for any fellow Britian's called connect 4 has just started.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:50:29 PM)
I am also able to use a virtual keyboard. I can see the future where we hook our brains into a grid/network and gain the ability to speak telepathically. [8\|] (ghost in the shell) So have we come across a definition yet? What keyboard?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:03:41 PM)
I still don't understand the basis for thinking the keyboard doesn't exist pyro.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic [8D] There is the potential that I am not using keyboard at all. You cannot prove or disprove this. These are pretty and philosophically fluffy things to say, but you don't function under this notion in your daily life (nor do the rest of us). quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic I do not support or deny God with words. They are too limited. Only because it's convenient to place an implausible concept in a realm beyond human communication to make it a prime candidate for special pleading. I am placing an implausible concept somewhere beyond human communication. Hmm..... I am rather pleased with God as a concept. As I am part of God just like you. Would you prefer the word 'Kosmos' as to not dredge up any sort of Religious Attachment to it? So the Kosmos exploded and organized itself into pretty little flowers, crystals, and people. Emergent behavior and efficient (and not so efficient design. Okay. God does not exist. But humans have connected to each other in one massive mindfuck called the internet. Data (and the potential for redirected energy) is transferred quickly. My question now is if there is no such thing as God why are we trying so hard to become God? P.S. There is more 'nothing' in this universe than there is 'something'.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:15:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic What keyboard? The one you're typing on while entertaining the idea that it does not function in the very way you argue it may not be. It doesn't matter if the entirety of what we perceive as materialistic reality is someone's video game or not because we still need to abide by the rules of the construct we're in and, furthermore, are incapable of divining any information from outside its parameters. Entertaining Matrix notions is fantastic for realizing the limits of how humanity works to understand itself and its universe, but without coupling that to the understanding that the idea of a Matrix is itself an infinite regress of other possible ones, it is a fundamentally flawed notion to try and adapt to a reality that functions right along with all the presumptions we make. It makes no difference if I could "in reality" be giving a hand-job to a giraffe every time I think I'm hitting the spacebar if my hitting it causes a reaction consistently and demonstrably linear to what I expect it to do when I hit it: create a space between text characters.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic My question now is if there is no such thing as God why are we trying so hard to become God? Because humans constructed the idea to be the zenith manifestation of everything we presume to be virtuous. It's a tautological question. You may as well be asking: Why do we each try so hard to become something which we each individually consider to be very important/valuable? Why do we want the things we want? Why do we seek the things that make us happy?

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:27:17 PM)
If we are successful in this endeavor does that mean there is no God? I can see what you are saying individually but we are doing this as a collective.... and not just humans or living things.

NorthernGent -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic I can see what you are saying individually but we are doing this as a collective.... and not just humans or living things. Perhaps this is where you're misunderstanding the evolution of human ideas: The great watersheds in the history of thinking: the post-Socrates era - Machiavelli - John Locke - Nietzsche - Isaiah Berlin....... The trend is one of demanding individual liberty.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:47:46 PM)
I have ceased to see myself as an individual. Every action demands reaction. My movement on this planet however small I am affects everything in existence. Everything in existence has some sort of effect on me. I have not heard of Machiavelli or Isaiah Berlin so I have some reading to do. I care little for liberty. I am happy in fetters, dust or mental. I like Ken Wilber though.

VanityFix -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 2:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: VanityFix found on wiki, i like it.. God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism. God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent" I was also impressed how all of the documents you offered make explicit claims of absolute truth without evidence and are in direct contradiction to each other. You obviously spent a lot of time doing this locating such religions. It also demonstrated this was no simple cut and past on your behalf... -Esin ctrl c, ctrl p, it was that simple, sorry to let ya down kiddo

VanityFix -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 2:39:46 PM)
i find some atheists as zealous in trying to convice the world god isnt real as the religious fanatics, i generally veiw that if you have a very strong belief in what you think you dont need to convince the world around you how right you are. i try to avoid proslotising at any level but one of my firm beliefs is that my views of my own god/faith/w.e are likly wrong, such an idea shuts me up about bitching what others think the universe is run by. i also like being wrong, puts a bit of mystery out there on how things work.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 4:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael Esinn, Lol, interesting that you did not reply to the post that I corrected myself regarding. Checking one's self and having the tenacity to note an error is, I think, a mark of character. You don't know what you are talking about regarding Freud, science, or anything else, for that matter --other than your own Narcissistic bubble which I enrourage you to retreat into-- and, it shows. You still have not addressed my original post to you while I did, in fact reply to your original post. Davan Again if you want to discuss logically any point I brought up, I would much rather discuss the article as a whole, let's discuss it. This is the 3rd - 4th time you have implied I was an idiot but choose not to identify material I presented that helped you in arriving at this conclusion. I have said 3-4 times I am willing to discuss the points you disagree with me on. I do not know how to hit it home. So, I will try one final time. If there is any point in the post in which I mentioned Freud you disagree with, feel is incorrect, misinformed or wrong I will gladly discuss it with you. You have been saying, "Nay Nay boo boo I am right you are wrong." I have represented myself fairly. I made a claim and posted current evidence in support of it. What do you feel I ought to do? As far as post I am ignoring I am not sure which one your are referring to. Perhaps you can copy and past it as a quote or mail it to me. -E

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 4:28:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanityFix quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: VanityFix found on wiki, i like it.. God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism. God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent" I was also impressed how all of the documents you offered make explicit claims of absolute truth without evidence and are in direct contradiction to each other. You obviously spent a lot of time doing this locating such religions. It also demonstrated this was no simple cut and past on your behalf... -Esin ctrl c, ctrl p, it was that simple, sorry to let ya down kiddo My points still remain valid. Thanks, Fix. IF you or anyone care to discuss with me why they are incorrect I am here.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 4:31:56 PM)
Esin... Why are you correct?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 4:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Atheist Becomes Theist 5 Proofs for the Existence of God Just some links i found interesting. These so called "proofs" are nothing, new, just the same tired arguments that have been on all the creationist websites for years and thoroughly refuted. And Flew's supposed conversion is a bit exaggerated: "In the end, Flew doesn't claim to be either a theist or an atheist here. He says that theists may find some confirmation in some of the arguments used by some people. Even if we ignore the fact that he himself seems to have refuted some of those arguments in a very old book, there is an apparent absence of a "we" in those statements. Flew doesn't claim to find any comfort or confirmation of any beliefs in those arguments, so it would be hard to describe him as a theist. Perhaps he is hopeful; probably he is agnostic. But a theist? "

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875