| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 9:15 AM
Location: D-brane
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
no you lost *thppppgh* |
LOL... trying to evade the issue?
Some may identify with your claim that there is a lack of belief that God is intelligent, but you should remember that atheists don't form a monolithic group. We have divergent views on why we have our stand as atheist. So mine is quite clear. God was invented by men for different reasons, for different purposes at different times. Many of those reasons are of political, social and psychological nature. Most Atheists have come to the conclusion that God and everything associated with is a big lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2557
Local time: 7:15 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | "A point 0-dimensional mathematical object", "that which has no part."
Brilliant... |
And your point is...?
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2557
Local time: 7:15 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | I still like the idea of disallowing betweenness. Let any number of points that lack betweenness be the same point. |
I like it too! A point merely represents a location, with no "betweenness."
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Resident Theist
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 2033
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
no you lost *thppppgh* |
LOL... trying to evade the issue?
Some may identify with your claim that there is a lack of belief that God is intelligent, but you should remember that atheists don't form a monolithic group. We have divergent views on why we have our stand as atheist. So mine is quite clear. God was invented by men for different reasons, for different purposes at different times. Many of those reasons are of political, social and psychological nature. Most Atheists have come to the conclusion that God and everything associated with is a big lie. |
|
I realize those are your conclusions but I don't see how your conclusions defeat my premise.
_________________
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Resident Theist
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 2033
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: |
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
Define God apart from existence.
See what I did there? |
As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori? |
You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.
pwnt.  |
I am not really talking about a creator of existence. I'm talking the object that just is and put things in change and in motion. The definition of a thing that "just is" would be self-existent. Because it "just is" and was not formed from anything else.
Pwnt |
Ah, but if no question-begging-concept-stealing-existence-creator isn't necessary and a thing "just is", then this definition would fit the cosmos quite nicely. No God necessary.
pwnt
Edit: "isn't" |
Wait ... So atheists do make positive claims in regards to origins since you said that the cosmos is the eternal self-existence source of all change and motion. Since you make the claim where is the evidence?
BTW since you let the cat out of the bag that atheism does make positive claims in regard to origins will you be disciplined at the next meetup?
_________________
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_C
Reckoner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6598
Local time: 7:15 AM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: |
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
Define God apart from existence.
See what I did there? |
As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori? |
You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.
pwnt. |
I am not really talking about a creator of existence. I'm talking the object that just is and put things in change and in motion. The definition of a thing that "just is" would be self-existent. Because it "just is" and was not formed from anything else.
Pwnt |
Ah, but if a question-begging-concept-stealing-existence-creator isn't necessary and a thing "just is", then this definition would fit the cosmos quite nicely. No God necessary.
pwnt
|
Wait ... So atheists do make positive claims in regards to origins since you said that the cosmos is the eternal self-existence source of all change and motion. Since you make the claim where is the evidence?
BTW since you let the cat out of the bag that atheism does make positive claims in regard to origins will you be disciplined at the next meetup? |
I was just following your logic, Romans. If nothing is needed to create existence (which would be logically impossible anyway), then why do we need to posit a God in the first place? Occam's Razor, bitch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6663
Local time: 3:15 PM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | BTW since you let the cat out of the bag that atheism does make positive claims in regard to origins |
A person -who so happens not to be a theist- making a certain positive claim, is not the same thing as atheISM making said claim. Indeed it's quite impossible for atheism to make positive claims. It's not an ideology, but a word describing the absence of a specific ideology (namely theism). Or to put it in simpler words, a word that merely tells you what is absent does not tell you what is present instead.
| Quote: | | will you be disciplined at the next meetup? |
Even if there were such meetups, they'd involve people who -unlike you- CAN tell the difference between an atheIST and atheISM.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 9:15 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | ...your atheism is not a lack of belief in Gods existence but a lack of belief that God is intelligent... |
Nope, God is a fictional character. Period. |
KNOB please quit logging in as joe it is really annoying. |
If that is your best shot, you've lost. |
no you lost *thppppgh* |
LOL... trying to evade the issue?
Some may identify with your claim that there is a lack of belief that God is intelligent, but you should remember that atheists don't form a monolithic group. We have divergent views on why we have our stand as atheist. So mine is quite clear. God was invented by men for different reasons, for different purposes at different times. Many of those reasons are of political, social and psychological nature. Most Atheists have come to the conclusion that God and everything associated with is a big lie. |
|
I realize those are your conclusions but I don't see how your conclusions defeat my premise. |
Your premise is an unfounded conclusion. So I countered it with a different one... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Resident Theist
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 2033
Local time: 8:15 AM
Location: The God Shaped Hole in Your Heart
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | romans120 wrote: |
Now I have a challenge for you. Since you do not believe in God. Define existence and meaning apart from that eternal object. |
Define God apart from existence.
See what I did there? |
As I have defined God and demonstrated what I mean by it. How can something be defined apart from it's priori? |
You see, you can't have the creator of existence also "exist". You have to make up a term for that, such as "self-exist", which is just blatant stealing the concept.
pwnt. |
I am not really talking about a creator of existence. I'm talking the object that just is and put things in change and in motion. The definition of a thing that "just is" would be self-existent. Because it "just is" and was not formed from anything else.
Pwnt |
Ah, but if a question-begging-concept-stealing-existence-creator isn't necessary and a thing "just is", then this definition would fit the cosmos quite nicely. No God necessary.
pwnt
|
Wait ... So atheists do make positive claims in regards to origins since you said that the cosmos is the eternal self-existence source of all change and motion. Since you make the claim where is the evidence?
BTW since you let the cat out of the bag that atheism does make positive claims in regard to origins will you be disciplined at the next meetup? |
I was just following your logic, Romans. If nothing is needed to create existence (which would be logically impossible anyway), then why do we need to posit a God in the first place? Occam's Razor, bitch. |
I'm just saying that saying the cosmos posses the same neccessary atributes (namely eternality and self-existence) to explain why we observe change and motion is the same as positing a god because we are talking about the same definition.
_________________
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_C
Reckoner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6598
Local time: 7:15 AM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Can "God" be rigorously defined? |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: |
I'm just saying that saying the cosmos posses the same neccessary atributes (namely eternality and self-existence) to explain why we observe change and motion is the same as positing a god because we are talking about the same definition. |
I don't know whether or not the cosmos possesses those attributes, but assuming it did, renaming it "God" wouldn't help your case. Unless you've just converted to pantheism... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
