Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 316 of 316
Like Tree42Likes

Thread: The Poor Claim That God Does Not Exist

  1. #301  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6
    Original english? The word has been shown to be nebulous throughout generations regardless of the language.

    My source to back up the argument that person I argued against was displaying the appeal to ignorance.

    Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work—if not pantheists. -Source- Pantheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #302  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I want to share some philosophical stuff I read:

    'God' is the absolute source of creation...
    All the universe and way beyond is a manifestation of the source of creation, underlined by the holy trinity of mind substance, energy and matter. Mind substance is the underlying substance of mind, it is the substance which allows inteligence to exist, from the lowest form of subconscious sensation to the highest form of all knowing consciouness. Mind substance manifests and acts upon force/energy, energy manifests and acts upon matter.
    Mindsubstance comes before energy, energy is the force used to contain mind substance and is manipulated by 'mind substance' to manifest matter.
    Matter cannot exist without energy, and mind substance underlying it, energy cannot exist without mind substance. Every little thing is alive with the emanations of the source of creation: mind, energy and matter... these things are not seperate emanations but 3 parts of the same emanation that are all everywhere.
    God is before nature, nature is of God.
    We humans are of God, we are not god, but of God. Just like every other living thing. Matter is alive with energy and intelligence.
    The three emanations of God have three principles which apply... omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent... all power, all might. all knowledge, all intelligence. Everywhere, in everything.

    God is All of creation, and more. God is the original source, the original cause of the universe and much more. There is no cause for God, God caused everything else.

    For me personally, I can't find a lot to argue with, but then i'm not clued up on physics enough to know if this is true or not, and lets be honest guys, none of us are right? When you remove all previously held concepts of god you learnt and think about this as the interpretation of God, it has some sense to it right?... then whats the problem with the concept of God? Though God is a word which has many associations in the minds of different people, the idea is a conscious source of all that we see and study, and much more that we have yet to find out.

    So... Whats to discuss? is there anybody who cannot grasp this?

    I'll be interested to hear what you guys make of this. Any questions?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #303  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Reptillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    See the thing is you keep trying to define "god" as something without intelligence. A definition that has never been applied to that word, and thus not a useful definition of the word.
    This is a example of appeal to ignorance as this shows the lack of study into history of theology and philosophy. Have you even studied natural pantheism and alternative viewpoint of god other than anthropomorphic version? If you did, then you would have realized it been applied to that words for thousands of years. Why do I waste my time with theists, agnostics, and atheists? They all have their crap to say. I consider myself a ignostic apatheist with a radical pragmatic value.
    I don't understand how this simple situation can be so drawn out. You can define any word you like any way you like, but that doesn't mean you should. As I used in my previous example, I can redefine "Apple" to mean a toxic object, and then make the claim that "Apples" are dangerous to humans. This is asinine because the huge majority of the population understands Apples to mean a fruit, not a toxic object. This applies to various definitions of "God" (especially in western culture).

    It is asinine to give something the name "God" that does not need that name. I don't know much about pantheism, but if they claim that "God" is nature and that they are exactly equivalent (without intelligence), then why call it "God"? Nature is nature and it is as simple as that. Do I believe nature exists? Absolutely.

    When SigurdW tries to define "God" as a natural event (a physical cause for an event) without intelligence, then what in the world is the point in calling it "God"? It is simple a physical cause for an event... I'm just truly not understanding the need to call it "God." I've been asking why since the start of the thread and have yet to receive an answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #304  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    See the thing is you keep trying to define "god" as something without intelligence.
    A definition that has never been applied to that word, and thus not a useful definition of the word.
    Earth was understood by all as flat, was it wrong to call it round?

    Yours is a strange argument:
    "Frame" is an ancient word
    but physics give it a special meaning
    that never has been applied to that word
    ,
    should that mean the definition is not useful?
    Tell the physicists!

    Also: If god has no brains
    then we can forgive him for creating this world,
    being brainless he didnt have a choice!

    Are you claiming that it is necessary
    that god is intelligent.
    That there actually is an intelligent god?

    Or is your claim that:
    If god doesnt exist
    then he must be intelligent?
    You aint that witty!

    Why do you keep lying... saying that I try to define
    "god" as something without intelligence?
    I simply do define "god" as something
    not necessarily with intelligence.



    I claim: No one believes god did not create the world! (but atheists)

    Therefore a concept of "god" must imply he did that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #305  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Reptillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    See the thing is you keep trying to define "god" as something without intelligence. A definition that has never been applied to that word, and thus not a useful definition of the word.
    This is a example of appeal to ignorance as this shows the lack of study into history of theology and philosophy. Have you even studied natural pantheism and alternative viewpoint of god other than anthropomorphic version? If you did, then you would have realized it been applied to that words for thousands of years. Why do I waste my time with theists, agnostics, and atheists? They all have their crap to say. I consider myself a ignostic apatheist with a radical pragmatic value.
    I don't understand how this simple situation can be so drawn out. You can define any word you like any way you like, but that doesn't mean you should. As I used in my previous example, I can redefine "Apple" to mean a toxic object, and then make the claim that "Apples" are dangerous to humans. This is asinine because the huge majority of the population understands Apples to mean a fruit, not a toxic object. This applies to various definitions of "God" (especially in western culture).

    It is asinine to give something the name "God" that does not need that name. I don't know much about pantheism, but if they claim that "God" is nature and that they are exactly equivalent (without intelligence), then why call it "God"? Nature is nature and it is as simple as that. Do I believe nature exists? Absolutely.

    When SigurdW tries to define "God" as a natural event (a physical cause for an event) without intelligence, then what in the world is the point in calling it "God"? It is simple a physical cause for an event... I'm just truly not understanding the need to call it "God." I've been asking why since the start of the thread and have yet to receive an answer.
    Where do I say "God" is a natural event?
    I clearly say "god" is the cause of Existence.
    Please show that to be a "natural" event.

    Dont you see why god need
    not to be intelligent?
    This world (with you in it) proves it!

    IF there were apples
    in the garden of Eden
    they forgot...
    to give one to YOU
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #306  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Sorry my troubled one
    God created EXISTENCE
    Let us forgive him
    He doesnt know he did
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #307  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    But ccoale...whats the problem with the word God? Just because you have these ideas of what god is from religions you don't agree with... doesn't mean a more sophisticated concept isn't also named God.

    In my previous post, the ancient philosophical stuff... they don't like the word God... they use the absolute source of creation. but you could call it God, the only reason they don't is because people associate god with religious teachings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #308  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Where do I say "God" is a natural event?
    I clearly say "god" is the cause of Existence.
    Please show that to be a "natural" event.

    Your entire argument has been based on the so-called "fundamental assumption of science", which you claim states that all natural phenomena have a cause. If you are using that as the basis of your argument, then clearly you are claiming that god is natural (for you use that definition to claim that god is an infinite chain of creations) -- if you are not claiming that he is natural, then you can no longer use that in support of your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    IF there were apples
    in the garden of Eden
    they forgot...
    to give one to YOU
    Now you make me wonder if your are an evangelist in disguise...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #309  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    But ccoale...whats the problem with the word God? Just because you have these ideas of what god is from religions you don't agree with... doesn't mean a more sophisticated concept isn't also named God.

    In my previous post, the ancient philosophical stuff... they don't like the word God... they use the absolute source of creation. but you could call it God, the only reason they don't is because people associate god with religious teachings.
    There is no problem with the word "god." I have an issue with a person who needlessly redefines "god" just so they can use it in an argument to claim "god exists."

    Like I said before:

    Let my definition of "apples" be toxic material.

    1. Toxic material is toxic to humans.
    2. Apples are therefore toxic to humans.

    I just proved that eating apples is an extremely bad idea!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #310  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    When you say needlessly redifines... you mean you have an 'original' definition? tell me what that is please.

    You should know that every word has various definitions, not least god. by the nature of the word it will have many varying definitions. What makes you say the is an original definition which has been redefined?

    Aples do contain toxins i'd bet, they're pretty acidic too. Too many will certainly prove toxic to humans, yet in moderation they'r fine. I don't get what you're trying to say with that one, didn't get it the first time you said it either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #311  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    When you say needlessly redifines... you mean you have an 'original' definition? tell me what that is please.

    You should know that every word has various definitions, not least god. by the nature of the word it will have many varying definitions. What makes you say the is an original definition which has been redefined?
    The vast majority of people understand the most basic definition of "God" to simply be an intelligence. Likewise, the vast majority of people understand the most basic definition of an "apple" to simply mean a fruit.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Apples do contain toxins i'd bet, they're pretty acidic too. Too many will certainly prove toxic to humans, yet in moderation they'r fine. I don't get what you're trying to say with that one, didn't get it the first time you said it either.
    I am simply saying that redefining a word, or giving a word a definition other than its common definition just to make an asinine assertion is meaningless. In this case, claiming that "God exists" when "God" is defined as "the cause of existence" is asinine. Is it not more logical to simply make the claim that "There is a cause for existence" as opposed to "God exists"?

    Why in this case must it be "God exists" as opposed to "A cause for existence exists"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #312  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I want to share some philosophical stuff I read:

    'God' is the absolute source of creation...
    It's clear from previous posts that we need a working definition of "god".

    As an Odinist, I do not believe that Odin created the universe. In Odinism, the universe exists independent of any creator. Yet my religion refers to Odin as a "god".

    So your definition of the word is clearly different from mine.

    All the universe and way beyond is a manifestation of the source of creation, underlined by the holy trinity of mind substance, energy and matter. Mind substance is the underlying substance of mind, it is the substance which allows inteligence to exist, from the lowest form of subconscious sensation to the highest form of all knowing consciouness. Mind substance manifests and acts upon force/energy, energy manifests and acts upon matter.
    Mindsubstance comes before energy, energy is the force used to contain mind substance and is manipulated by 'mind substance' to manifest matter.
    Matter cannot exist without energy, and mind substance underlying it, energy cannot exist without mind substance. Every little thing is alive with the emanations of the source of creation: mind, energy and matter... these things are not seperate emanations but 3 parts of the same emanation that are all everywhere.
    This term "mind substance" may be hard to find an adequate equivalent in physics. I want to say "order", but clearly non-living systems can possess order.


    God is before nature, nature is of God.
    We humans are of God, we are not god, but of God. Just like every other living thing. Matter is alive with energy and intelligence.
    The three emanations of God have three principles which apply... omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent... all power, all might. all knowledge, all intelligence. Everywhere, in everything.
    So basically God is asleep having a dream, and we're part of the dream?

    God is All of creation, and more. God is the original source, the original cause of the universe and much more. There is no cause for God, God caused everything else.

    For me personally, I can't find a lot to argue with, but then i'm not clued up on physics enough to know if this is true or not, and lets be honest guys, none of us are right? When you remove all previously held concepts of god you learnt and think about this as the interpretation of God, it has some sense to it right?... then whats the problem with the concept of God? Though God is a word which has many associations in the minds of different people, the idea is a conscious source of all that we see and study, and much more that we have yet to find out.

    So... Whats to discuss? is there anybody who cannot grasp this?

    I'll be interested to hear what you guys make of this. Any questions?

    Why could not an unconscious, or even unintelligent being/event/object create the universe?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #313  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    When you say needlessly redifines... you mean you have an 'original' definition? tell me what that is please.

    You should know that every word has various definitions, not least god. by the nature of the word it will have many varying definitions. What makes you say the is an original definition which has been redefined?
    The vast majority of people understand the most basic definition of "God" to simply be an intelligence. Likewise, the vast majority of people understand the most basic definition of an "apple" to simply mean a fruit.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Apples do contain toxins i'd bet, they're pretty acidic too. Too many will certainly prove toxic to humans, yet in moderation they'r fine. I don't get what you're trying to say with that one, didn't get it the first time you said it either.
    I am simply saying that redefining a word, or giving a word a definition other than its common definition just to make an asinine assertion is meaningless. In this case, claiming that "God exists" when "God" is defined as "the cause of existence" is asinine. Is it not more logical to simply make the claim that "There is a cause for existence" as opposed to "God exists"?

    Why in this case must it be "God exists" as opposed to "A cause for existence exists"?
    I don't know what asinine is supposed to mean and don't care to look it up right now, I appologise.
    What the vast majority understand is irrelevant. In fact the vast majority to not claim to understand what God is.
    just becuase god is the source, it doesn't mean he no longer exists... By all common definitions God is allmighty, all powerful, all knowing... in what way can that be considered dead?
    God is the cause but many choose to think the cause is alive and still exists... it's not a problem is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #314  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I don't know what asinine is supposed to mean and don't care to look it up right now, I appologise.
    Asinine means foolish, silly, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What the vast majority understand is irrelevant.
    What the vast majority understand a word to mean is what gives that word its definition. We tell the dictionary what words mean, it doesn't tell us. That is, after all, how new words are formed and formally added to dictionaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    In fact the vast majority to not claim to understand what God is.
    just becuase god is the source, it doesn't mean he no longer exists...
    I don't think he exists at all, but that wasn't the point. The point is that SigurdW should have not used the word "God" in his argument. He didn't provide an argument for the existence of "God." He provided an argument for the existence of a cause for existence -- in other words, he claimed that "existence was caused."

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    By all common definitions God is allmighty, all powerful, all knowing...
    That is not true at all. Hindu gods are not necessarily "all powerful." In fact, there are various gods that are less powerful than other gods, and some gods that have power only over certain aspects of the natural. They do, however, all have "intelligence" as a property.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #315  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I want to share some philosophical stuff I read:

    'God' is the absolute source of creation...
    It's clear from previous posts that we need a working definition of "god".

    As an Odinist, I do not believe that Odin created the universe. In Odinism, the universe exists independent of any creator. Yet my religion refers to Odin as a "god".

    So your definition of the word is clearly different from mine.

    With god as the source of creation, there is no equal. The odin God, is merely a higher being in the philosophy I posted, an advanced soul.

    All the universe and way beyond is a manifestation of the source of creation, underlined by the holy trinity of mind substance, energy and matter. Mind substance is the underlying substance of mind, it is the substance which allows inteligence to exist, from the lowest form of subconscious sensation to the highest form of all knowing consciouness. Mind substance manifests and acts upon force/energy, energy manifests and acts upon matter.
    Mindsubstance comes before energy, energy is the force used to contain mind substance and is manipulated by 'mind substance' to manifest matter.
    Matter cannot exist without energy, and mind substance underlying it, energy cannot exist without mind substance. Every little thing is alive with the emanations of the source of creation: mind, energy and matter... these things are not seperate emanations but 3 parts of the same emanation that are all everywhere.
    This term "mind substance" may be hard to find an adequate equivalent in physics. I want to say "order", but clearly non-living systems can possess order.
    In this philosophy all things are alive. The atom is alive, it has intelligence, energy and matter. Order is not bad... maybe consciousness being the underlying principle of matter... Mind substance is supposed to be the underlying intelligence in all things. 'Chitta'.


    God is before nature, nature is of God.
    We humans are of God, we are not god, but of God. Just like every other living thing. Matter is alive with energy and intelligence.
    The three emanations of God have three principles which apply... omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent... all power, all might. all knowledge, all intelligence. Everywhere, in everything.
    So basically God is asleep having a dream, and we're part of the dream?

    No God is the source of creation but as such is way beyond the comprehension of any ordinary mind. God has been around from the start, and before. Nothing we do is relevant to him, nothing we can do has any effect on The source. The time scale alone gives God a perspective that we cannot relate too. We are slowly unfolding into consciousness of God.

    God is All of creation, and more. God is the original source, the original cause of the universe and much more. There is no cause for God, God caused everything else.

    For me personally, I can't find a lot to argue with, but then i'm not clued up on physics enough to know if this is true or not, and lets be honest guys, none of us are right? When you remove all previously held concepts of god you learnt and think about this as the interpretation of God, it has some sense to it right?... then whats the problem with the concept of God? Though God is a word which has many associations in the minds of different people, the idea is a conscious source of all that we see and study, and much more that we have yet to find out.

    So... Whats to discuss? is there anybody who cannot grasp this?

    I'll be interested to hear what you guys make of this. Any questions?

    Why could not an unconscious, or even unintelligent being/event/object create the universe?
    Well, an unconscious being is unlikely.
    Because there is too much intelligence in the universe and beyond... to many phenomena that has to have been created from something. It cannot all manifest out of nowhere, there has to be a cause for life, existence. It makes too much sense to be random. It's also too puzzling and intelligent to be random...

    Te fact that all these great minds have really made very little dent on reality... is because it has intelligent design.

    The idea that everything appeared out of absolutely nowhere following a big boom of some kind is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous (but to be fair I don't know that much about the theory) there was nothing, then boom, there was everything? The Idea of God is 'out there' but the idea of a big bang being the source of existence is absurd beyond words. It's laughable. Then I suppose many other theories are too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #316  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I don't know what asinine is supposed to mean and don't care to look it up right now, I appologise.
    Asinine means foolish, silly, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What the vast majority understand is irrelevant.
    What the vast majority understand a word to mean is what gives that word its definition. We tell the dictionary what words mean, it doesn't tell us. That is, after all, how new words are formed and formally added to dictionaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    In fact the vast majority to not claim to understand what God is.
    just becuase god is the source, it doesn't mean he no longer exists...
    I don't think he exists at all, but that wasn't the point. The point is that SigurdW should have not used the word "God" in his argument. He didn't provide an argument for the existence of "God." He provided an argument for the existence of a cause for existence -- in other words, he claimed that "existence was caused."

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    By all common definitions God is allmighty, all powerful, all knowing...
    That is not true at all. Hindu gods are not necessarily "all powerful." In fact, there are various gods that are less powerful than other gods, and some gods that have power only over certain aspects of the natural. They do, however, all have "intelligence" as a property.
    Did you find it a bit crass to say silly instead of asinine?
    The hindus are a superstitious bunch. Do they not have an ultimate god? The stuff I posted is yogi philosophy, from sanskit texts, from india. Although it wasn't directly from sanskrit sources. I read it from an occultist book and I had my suspicions it was some kind of johovas witness hand book.

    Considering how old that philosophy is, and how much of it has slowly been proved correct by science, it really is quite amazing. For example they describe the ultimate partical of matter, as not a partical, but a vortex of energy. That was thousands of years ago... It's a spiritual philosophy and obviously it answers a lot of other questions which apparently have not yet been answered by science.
    Time will tell how much of the other stuff they got right.
    I'm not the typpe to beleive things I don't know... I don't beleive in much at all these days
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. The Misery of Those Who Claim That God Does Not Exist
    By FAS in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 28th, 2012, 08:51 AM
  2. Dark energy may not exist in space, scientists claim
    By Cyberia in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 15th, 2010, 01:18 PM
  3. The claim that morality/ethics is dependent on a god.
    By Lucius Cornelius Sulla in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 01:35 AM
  4. Does God exist?
    By Jim Colyer in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 02:33 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •