You Can't Argue Against God

[stvdv]

So God is nothing?
Or do you mean there was nothing other than God?

Then, did God always exist?

You ask difficult questions, way beyond my knowing-grade

IOW, something, "God" has always existed?

I don't know (I still can't fathom that)

If you are interested, Sai Baba went into more details about that (video in which he speaks for 15 minutes on these kind of things).

Still, you need to be on "God level (Self Realized)" I think, to really understand "God stuff".

But the Wise say "Wisdom can happen in a second", some need only a small nudge, others need many blows with a hammer. Maybe you are the nudge type, I seem to be the hammer type (fortunately that can also change in an instant)

 

[stvdv]

No .. not near as clear as you would have us believe Brother Stv .. there is no God creating "Everything" in the original Hebrew version of the story . The story is not of the creation of the whole universe .. but of earth .. which is formed not by God willing everything into existence .. but by the interactions among the primordial Gods of Nature ... who then spawn the anthropomorphic Gods who end up creating humans "Like US - In Our Image" they say ..

Someone has duped you into the "God of Everything" fallacy .. the existentialist fallacy of the God who is not Nothing .. out of the primordial ooze comes order from the chaos .. this is not a fairy tale battle between Good and Evil .. but between light and dark .. order and chaos .. positive and negative .. the twin primordial forces .. who later spawn "The Gods" having great Godly powers.. and great Godly battles.

So .. while the spoon fed propagandas story "God is Everything" may well be a good one in the minds of many --- It has nothing to do with the Sacred Bible story as you suggest .. and for some reason thought was quite clear .. but, this is not so I fear

I started with this clear reply:

Oh, I thought in the case of "God = .." it's too obvious, no need to debate

God is defined as e.g. Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. God can't be limited,

Hence, never write God on left side of "="

God = ...

As this limits God, hence "it's false"

You started adding "everything"

I suppose you can define what ever you like as God .. but .. that definition is extremely poor IMO .. the "God is Everything Definition"

So, don't twist my words ("everything" is yours, not mine)

Don't impose your words ("everything") on me, twisting it, and then even trying to gaslight me into believing that this is what I believe by claiming:

Someone has duped you into the "God of Everything" fallacy .. the existentialist fallacy of the God who is not Nothing ..

Not funny

 

[Sargonski]

This is why the skeptic needs the believer to define what he means by "God." The believers choose the god they believe in, so they can tell the skeptic what it is that they believe is true.

Now, theist 2 tells us what he means by a god, and we tell him or her the same thing we told the sun worshipper: "I don't believe you". Then theist 3 describes something different that he or she calls a god, and we tell that person that they need better evidence as well. At no point does the skeptic need to define the believer's god for him.

I don't see why you have a problem with that claim: "No Gods are known to exist" (apart from the capitalization issue). You seem to disagree, but he is obviously correct. Worshiping the sun as a god doesn't make it one.

Incidentally, my working definition of a god in the Abrahamic (monotheistic) sense is a sentient universe creator. For polytheistic pantheons, a god is an aspect of nature personified. I don't have any reason to believe that anything like the former exists, and no reason to disagree with the polytheists. If they want to give the wind a name, for example, I don't see anything to argue with there. It's poetry, like the phrases Mother Nature, Father Time, or the man in the moon.

Holy shart .. NO .. If the skeptic says "I do not believe in God" this is a meaningless statement without knowing what their definition of God is. Might as well say "I don't believe in X"

Saying you don't believe the Sun is a God is a completely different statement .. defining what it is that you don't believe . .so I know what it is that you don't believe. . If you say I don't believe in God --- you have not defined what it is that you don't believe .. which means you are claiming that you don't believe in nothing .. which means you believe in something heh heh

 

[Sargonski]

xxx

yyy

You Can't Argue Against God

You still haven't done the half-hour-with-no-air test. When you've done it, please be sure to let me know how it went. You don't know that. Here is that problem - you take for granted what you are supposed to show as a fact. In a sense it is a circular arguement. I can only be doing this if...

www.religiousforums.com

I started with this clear reply (above link):
"Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent are attributed to God"

and

"God = xxxx" is false; it would limit the limitless

You started adding "everything" below

So, don't twist my words ("everything" is yours, not mine)

Don't impose your words ("everything") on me, twisting it, and then even trying to gaslight me into believing that this is what I believe by claiming:
xxx

Not funny

Help me Lord Jesus .. the pain is to great ..
Your definition -- "Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent are attributed to God" How is that not the God of Everyting ? or did you intentionally not add "All Powerfull" because your definition of God includes one that is not necessarily all powerful .

Its a meaningless "God is everything" definition .. no one is twisting your words .. I was stating what the words you used mean .. cause apparenty you don't know what this spoon fed fundamentalist "Thought Stopping" definition means. .

 

[stvdv]

Help me Lord Jesus .. the pain is to great ..
Your definition -- "Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent are attributed to God" How is that not the God of Everyting ? or did you intentionally not add "All Powerfull" because your definition of God includes one that is not necessarily all powerful .

Its a meaningless "God is everything" definition .. no one is twisting your words .. I was stating what the words you used mean

.. cause apparenty you don't know what this spoon fed fundamentalist "Thought Stopping" definition means. .

...

 

[Sargonski]

Were you going back and re-reading your posts? If so, thanks for agreeing with my observations.

Two different ideas. The sun actually exists, and it does whether people call it a God and worship it or not. The typical definition of God, that of a supernatural being, is not known to exist. You are moving goalposts here, switching the context. That's poor and desperate thinking. It also admits you can't honestly claim a supernatural God exists as suns/stars do.

Yet it's you evading the definition as a believer. It's almost as if you are afraid to.

Good questions to ask yourself and your evasion of defining your God.

What observation did I agree with and who said the Sun does not exist ? and God exists whether or not people call it a God and worship it or not .. just like the Sun . so what ? what is the point of this pointless comment ?

"Moving the Goalposts" - What goalposts ? you simply have no clue what is being discussed .. there is no goalpost . because you refuse to provide one .. by defining what you mean by God. and then accusing me of evading giving a definition of God when 1) I have given many and 2) you never asked . What a joke ... you are the one who won't define what you mean by God . .. afraid to tell us what it is you don't believe in.

 

[Sargonski]

...

Do you not believe in the God of Everyting Stv ... how about a lesser God .. one not all powerful but with the the ability to rain lightning down from the sky .. is that not a God-like power ?

 

[Sargonski]

You don't understand. The God that he doesn't believe in is whatever God you DO believe in. So he needs YOU to tell him what God YOU believe in first so he can then tell you that he doesn't believe in it.

HUH ? your making absolutely no sense .. " The God that he doesn't believe in is what ever God you do believe in "

I don't believe any of the God nonsense you are selling .. and certainly not some God that "he" doesn't believe in. You are talking abject nonsense .. strawman fallacy coupled with inanity. You don't know anything about the God in which I believe sport .. .. not a single thing.. so why on earth are you pretending otherwise? Is this fantasyland hour and someone forgot to tell me ?

 

[Madsaac]

How do you know that you speak for a we and how do you know it is the BEST?

Do you know of better?

 

[Madsaac]

No, it does not. Science does not seek nor proclaim certainty. It is the mythical lie of scientism that asserts that. Please stop believing it. Doing so is just as bad for all of us as believing and asserting that God wrote the Bible.

I agree, science does not seek to proclaim certainty. However it has the ability seek certainty (for most things) better then anything else on Earth and that's a fact!

 

[Madsaac]

I can do it for you for this version of scientism:
"Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]"

Scientism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You also a variant of best or only. But that is old news.

Yes best way, no one including the best scientist in the world have ever said it isn't the only way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree, science does not seek to proclaim certainty. However it has the ability seek certainty (for most things) better then anything else on Earth and that's a fact!

It doesn't become a fact simply because you say it's a fact.

How can anything be certain in a world in which facts about time and space are never absolute, but always dependent on a frame of reference? Special Relativity tells us this, btw.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know of better?

No, but that is the point. There is no way in the objective sense to know any version of better.

 

[Madsaac]

The mind is not the brain. The latter is a material organ in the body, and can be studied by science. The former is conscious awareness, qualitative experience, the capacity for wonder. Science has, as yet, made no real progress in studying this; scientists can’t even agree upon a definition of consciousness.

The brain makes the mind, without the brain there is no mind.

And please, stop with these unevidenced assertions about what “everyone” believes.
What we mean when we say know something, how we come by that knowledge, how we justify it; these things are always open to debate, especially in the natural sciences, where diversity of opinion is frequently as common as it is in philosophy.

Yes sorry, I'm referring to ideas that are not up for interpretation like water is made from H2O for example. You don't think that's up for debate do you?

Isn't that the what we are discussing, how can certain ideas be up for personal interpretation? They are what they are?

 

[Madsaac]

It doesn't become a fact simply because you say it's a fact.

How can anything be certain in a world in which facts about time and space are never absolute, but always dependent on a frame of reference? Special Relativity tells us this, btw.

Do you know then of any better ways? If not then it is a fact. Isn't it?

No, but that is the point. There is no way in the objective sense to know any version of better.

No, the we agree, Science is the best way for many things

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, how succesful as succes looks like in external sensory experince terms.

Ow, so you want to argue a strawman?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, show me better as empirical.

I can't nor am I the one arguing that there is a better one.

Just as above, what better looks like and so on. Actual sensory experince as empirical.

Success in a method of inquiry is measured by its results.

As in: planes fly, nukes explode.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know then of any better ways? If not then it is a fact. Isn't it?

No, we agree, Science is the best way

We don't agree. There is no best way for humanity as such to know anything as long as human remain as they are now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Success in a method of inquiry is measured by its results.

As in: planes fly, nukes explode.

Good. We can agree on that, but not that it is useful in any objective sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Succesful is subjective as it is a personal subjective experience.

Nukes actually exploding is a "personal subjective experience"?

Now you refute that by giving objective sensory experience for successful as successful.

I have no need to refute silly strawmen.

Simply describe what successful looks like.

Nukes actually explode.
The ability to get sh!t done.