Does any supernatural god exist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, that one by you as is not science. It is not even valid and sufficient or evidence. It is in effect a feeling.

 

[Ajax]

Yeah, that one by you as View attachment 91171 is not science. It is not even valid and sufficient or evidence. It is in effect a feeling.

Ok, whatever you say pal...Are you a 1st year student of philosophy? Congratulations!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, whatever you say pal...Are you a 1st year student of philosophy? Congratulations!

No, I have been doing this for more that 30 years.
Try again.

 

[Ajax]

At one time even that earth orbits the sun was considered to defy logic.

Not only that, but the sun and the moon stopped, till Israel avenged itself on its enemies..

 

[Mock Turtle]

One wonders why you waste your time on a religious site when you clearly have no intention of ever believing.

Do you have some resentment in your life that makes you feel the need to try to convince believers that God isn’t real?

I don’t have any interest in many things but I don’t hang out on their websites telling them how stupid they are.

Maybe you should get a hobby.

So people should just keep their mouths shut when they witness nonsense being peddled so freely - like the YEC stuff?

 

[Ajax]

As acts says, this was all prophesied by David.

Wrong again. That's the enormous dishonesty of theists' apologetics. Trying to find irrelevant sayings, even poems like Psalm 109 which simply refers to people speaking words of hate and deceit and convert them to prophecies. David was not a prophet.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong again. That's the enormous dishonesty of theists' apologetics. Trying to find irrelevant sayings, even poems like Psalm 109 which simply refers to people speaking words of hate and deceit and convert them to prophecies. David was not a prophet.

Well, not all gods are theistic Gods.
In practice for one version of a god, it is a creator god and thus for the standard version of supernatural supernatural, but it is not a theistic God as such.
So yes, it is about in part, but not just theisitic Gods.

 

[Nakosis]

No, it is about the referents of words. Some of those refer to something that only exist as a human construct. Not all words have objective referents as per this version of objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Such as?
Can you give me an example?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Such as?
Can you give me an example?

No! The joke is that that No! is such an example.
So let us unpack a concrete and non-concrete word. Cat versus no.
I will start with cat. The word refers to a cat and you can do sensible experience for the 5 external senses on an actual cat. I.e. it is objective as per the defintion above.

Now do the same with no. Look as see to the referent of no. Hold the referent to no. Describe the referent's forms and other sensible experinces as per the external senses.
Well, you can't.
In effect the difference is this. If you removed all cognitive beings like humans there would be no referents to no, but there would still be referents to cats.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, not all gods are theistic Gods.
In practice for one version of a god, it is a creator god and thus for the standard version of supernatural supernatural, but it is not a theistic God as such.
So yes, it is about in part, but not just theisitic Gods.

Mikkel, Howdi? Long time, no see.
Are their atheistic Gods?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, Howdi? Long time, no see.
Are their atheistic Gods?

Hi.
Start by looking up theistic and then compare with deistic and then go even wider and consider the western idea of God is a limited historical cultural idea.

 

[Ajax]

Well, not all gods are theistic Gods.
In practice for one version of a god, it is a creator god and thus for the standard version of supernatural supernatural, but it is not a theistic God as such.
So yes, it is about in part, but not just theisitic Gods.

One thing is certain. That we can never have a 100% knowledge, So as far as I'm concerned you are not a real person, but an AI bot, because my message to which you replied, did not mention any gods, theistic or supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One thing is certain. That we can never have a 100% knowledge, So as far as I'm concerned you are not a real person, but an AI bot, because my message to which you replied, did not mention any gods, theistic or supernatural.

Okay, how do you know that we as we will never have 100% knowledge. Is that 100% certain?
As for theists they are connected to Gods. So yes, you talked about Gods.

 

[Nakosis]

No! The joke is that that No! is such an example.
So let us unpack a concrete and non-concrete word. Cat versus no.
I will start with cat. The word refers to a cat and you can do sensible experience for the 5 external senses on an actual cat. I.e. it is objective as per the defintion above.

Now do the same with no. Look as see to the referent of no. Hold the referent to no. Describe the referent's forms and other sensible experinces as per the external senses.
Well, you can't.
In effect the difference is this. If you removed all cognitive beings like humans there would be no referents to no, but there would still be referents to cats.

Also a reference to the behavior. A cat would have to look a rock and need to decide whether it is food. The answer would be no.

It is just a conceptualization of behavior that happens whether humans are around or not. No is a negation of behavior or thought. These things do occur independent of people. No is a word we developed to express this occurrence in nature.

 

[Ajax]

As for theists they are connected to Gods. So yes, you talked about Gods.

Completely irrelevant. "Theists" could be connected to pedophile priests, or to thousands of other issues.
I'm certain you are an AI bot now...
Are you an American or Chinese design?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Also a reference to the behavior. A cat would have to look a rock and need to decide whether it is food. The answer would be no.

It is just a conceptualization of behavior that happens whether humans are around or not. No is a negation of behavior or thought. These things do occur independent of people. No is a word we developed to express this occurrence in nature.

Yeah. I clearly can see as see as per external sensory experience a negation. Now please reference as for a second what a negation is in physical terms with reference to scientific measurement and how it relates to the 5 external senses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Completely irrelevant. "Theists" could be connected to pedophile priests, or to thousands of other issues.
I'm certain you are an AI bot now...

Priest: someone who is authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God.

At least I know how to check the defintion of a word.

 

[Kenny]

I've seen threads of...
Theists: Does God Exist?
Atheist: Does God Exist?

IMO That refers to one certain God

So painting with a broader brush, does any supernatural god exist?

I look at the world and all that is in it, and my conclusion is that there is a supernatural God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I look at the world and all that is in it, and my conclusion is that there is a supernatural God.

Yeah, but from there doesn't follow that it is your God.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, but from there doesn't follow that it is your God.

Yes, we all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

I support every person’s right to come to their own conclusion.