Defining what is God.

[SkinWalker]

Actually its common sense - I doubt you can provide evidence of anything that doesn't rest on a definition/conception - if such things are absent it becomes impossible to distinguish evidence from non-evidence, since you don't know what you are looking for.

Complete and utter crap. Just because you can imagine something, doesn't mean it can exist in reality. Nor does it mean your imagination was true. This thread isn't about "defining a god," its about paying attention to LG's imagination. I'm starting to see it straight now. I've accused you many times of using cowardly tactics and being intellectually dishonest, but, until now, I've not known the reason. You're just an attention seeker.

You cannot even talk of fairies without fulfilling this requirement

The difference is, "conceptualizing" fairies doesn't make them present or real. We can all "conceptualize" a fairy, share our conceptions and arrive at a consensus of what the ideal fairy should be. We can even draw pictures and dress up like fairies from our "conceptualizations." But, in the end, the fairies are still among our imaginations. People have been doing the same things with gods for as long as there've been people. Not a single god has shown itself. Their just as imaginative as the fairies.

Which brings us back to the difference: most people don't try to suggest fairies are real, and when they do, few object to the many who accuse them of being crazy. Why shouldn't theists be treated any differently?

Regardless of your opinions, the thread deals with the idea that the defintion of god (outside of evidence or no evidence) is 'that which no one can conceive of as greater than' - your conception of god is something that is concocted by human society so it becomes easy to defeat, since the conception of a god that is not concocted is superior to a god that is.

And, regardless of your opinions, the OP is utter bullshit and is now diverging. We're past your silly "requirements" and now we're offering our own. Get over it. You've demonstrated that your imagination is more active than mine, I concede. Now show us the evidence of your fairy. I mean god.

(BTW the purpose of this thread, hopefully, is to make clear what is the exact definition of god that a theist works with- naturally the conception of god that an atheist works with is not superior since such conceptions don't warrant worship by the atheist advocate, so its pointless to bring them up in this thread)

More cowardly BS/intellectual dishonesty. An atheist has at least the understanding of a god that a theist has. Indeed, the atheist is more qualified to "conceive" of gods and work with definitions since most theists reject out-of-hand all versions of "god" that don't fit their own delusions. The atheist is far more qualified, in general, to discuss such things. Indeed, if anyone is unqualified, it is the credulous and deceivers such as yourself. Leave matters of belief and religion to the social scientists (anthropologists, psychologists, etc). The theists are obviously too wrapped up in their delusions to see the issue from objective position. The atheistic social scientists, however, are not clouded by such religiocentric views and seek only to find out what people believe.

Moreover, the atheist, in most cases, need only remember when he/she was a theist. After all, many atheists are so because of their enlightenment through education, having been indoctrinated as children as theists.

Cowards way? It is the way of recognizing who is qualified in what field, without which it is impossible to determine whether one should consult a lawyer or a fruit vendow in times of legal difficulty - its actually the intelligent way

So you accept the validity of those that would consider themselves to be "fairyologists?" What are *your* qualifications, LG? Rather than address questions of evidence, it's much easier for the proponent of theistic superstition to shift the burden of proof or hide it altogether, eh? If you don't like being pinned down, just say, "oh, your not qualified to question me and mine, so bugger off." This, my friend, is the coward's way.

yes but it may not be detectable to everyone - much like radiation
so your claim that an omnipresent thing should be evident to anyone and everyone is straight out silliness

No. Your intellectual dishonesty in this thread is 'straight out silliness.' The radiation is potentially detectable by anyone. I need only put the right instrument or meter in front of them; or show them the predictable results of longterm exposure; or any number of other methods. The fairy of your imagination has no such instrument, meter, or predictable results that exist to measure it -outside of your imagination. So you can "conceptualize" all you want, the only way to demonstrate the existence is through belief.

I never used the word 'believer'
just like detecting radiation requires special qualifications of the seer, just like detecting an electron require special qualifications of the seer, in the same way detecting the nature of the transcendental requires special qualifications, much like the detection of absolutely anything, it requires special or at least specific qualfications

Complete and utter bullshit. This is the main example of LG's intellectual dishonesty. Rather than hold a reasoned discussion with reality-based information, he retreats to the comfort of "ah, you're just not qualified to know." That he's eager to have discussions with those that are willing to assist in masturbating his ego, yet unwilling to address criticisms that are legitimate is evidence of this intellectual dishonesty. Before you can say that there are "transcendental" qualities that elude those without "special qualifications," you must first demonstrate that these "transcendental" qualities exist. The burden of proof is on you. And you most certainly *did* use the word believer. Only you spell it differently than I do. For, isn't "special or at least specific qualifications" just another way to say "believer?"

if you want to label the high school drop out thing as a straw man or an eg. of intellectual dishonesty, you have to establish what is unique about the person who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to spiritual life that does not tally with a molecular physicist who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to molecular physics.

Until you do this, to spill out with claims of 'straw man', 'intellectual dishonesty', 'poppycock' etc is jumping the gun

Not at all. It *is* a straw man and it *is* intellectual dishonesty. You're mixing reality with fantasy and calling them the same. For those that don't know of the electron or radiation, it can potentially be shown or explained to them. There are no "special qualifications" beyond simply being of normal human intelligence. Your straw man was thoroughly debunked by one or more other members (i.e. Cris) in other threads. Yet you still bring it up as though it is a legitimate argument for your theistic delusions. The only hope another theist has of "observing" your "conception" is by believing in your imagination. This is called delusion.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Medicine woman, given that we cannot even remember what it was like in the womb, its not apparent why

*************
M*W: But how do you know we can't remember what the womb was like? Just because we cannot recall our time there, doesn't mean we don't have genetic memory of it. We are unaware how our life in the womb may play a role in our future existence. It's been my experience, from talking to mothers who have borne and raised children, that life in the womb may play a role in the life of the child. Of course, this study is unofficial and based on my professional opinion only. What I believe is that fetuses who "cling" to the womb, in other words, those who go beyond their "due date," have delayed maturation leading to delayed independence at adulthood. Those who have precipitious births are more likely to be independent and go on their own right after high school, for example. I can't say this study has been scientific, because no measurements or controls have been used to substantiate my theory. My conclusions come from observation and interviews only. So, we really don't know what influence the womb has on us, but I wouldn't discount it as nothing. After all, it's our mother's womb which has created us.

 

[iam]

Theists assume that the possible existence of a god means it is all powerful, good, perfect, and worthy of worship. This in itself is presumptuous. Anyone with half an insight probably has been suspicious that the biblical god and the devil are one or at least his dark side and the religion is based on evil or negativity not good. Sacrifice of the innocent(lamb) and scapegoating of the innocent(jesus christ) to achieve salvation, nothing divine or miraculous about it. Lots of superfluous smoke and mirrors for predation at its base foundation. Thats why there are only two types of people in the church, naive and perpetrators.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(BTW the purpose of this thread, hopefully, is to make clear what is the exact definition of god that a theist works with- naturally the conception of god that an atheist works with is not superior since such conceptions don't warrant worship by the atheist advocate, so its pointless to bring them up in this thread)
”
Utter bollocks!
(Pardon my French).

Atheists can have exactly the same understanding and definitions of God as a theist - yet, based on the lack of evidence of that God's existence, choose not to have a belief that it exists.

true - they could, but many do not - for instance many atheists refuse to work with the concept that god is the cause of all causes

You can NOT dismiss atheists' conceptions merely because they don't have a belief in that God's existence UNLESS you establish the reasoning for that atheist's lack of belief and build that into the framework of your definition.
But you can not - as lack of belief for the majority of atheists is based entirely on EVIDENCE - and this thread, as you have said yourself - is not discussing evidence (or lack of).

I am just saying that an atheists conception of god is inferior - like for instance the concept of a god that i s not the cause of all causes is inferior to a god that is - and sincethe OP of this thread suggests that the very concept of god is that entity to whom no one can conceive of as greater, the god that is not the cause of all causes doesn't cut the mustard

Therefore Theism or Atheism is IRRELEVANT in this discussion - and an insultful logical fallacy on your part, not to mention arrogant.

you are right - it is not a question of atheism or theism - it is a question of definition - and to say that a god that is not the cause of all causes does not come out on top, what to speak of a god that is socially constructed by humanity

 

[qwerty mob]

Qwerty mob



generally intelligent discussion does not solely rely on confidence statements and allusions to charisma

You show no perpensity for discussion of any sort.

If you won't begin to address my definition of what Gods are, kindly take your red herrings, nonsequiturs, and miscellany of fallacies and go push them off on message board freshmen who are even less adept at reasoning than yourself- IF there are ANY.

Good Day.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
it raises many problems
”
Well not really, no. I guess a decent analogy right here would be for me to say it's somewhat like being a high school dropout. What does he know of electrons and neutrons?

the high school analogy is brought up on the issue of evidence, not definition

“
mostly how a community of beings can lay claim to being the cause of all causes
”
They have little to no interest in what you think they care to lay claim to. They have always existed, always been.. One day during an annual godly festival one of the gods voiced an idea. The other gods loved it and the universe was created. Which one of those gods did all or most of the work is irrelevant. They all find they can click their fingers and create things and so which specific one clicked his/her finger this time is of no relevance to anything.

“

then if one created something with a click then another would exist in a universe that bore an effect that they didn't cause - and since they are all clicking their fingers like this, it appears they all lose claim to the title 'cause of all causes'

so it raises the perplexity what is the outcome when one god has a different view than another (your gods seem to be subject to frustration)
”
They settle their differences by playing a game similar to human chess.

I wasn't aware chess players weren't frustrated (particularly the loser)

“
Btw you can call your defintion of god the FSM or Larry or whatever,
”
No I can't, or if I can then we might as well call your definition FSM as well.

you can if you want - but my point was that since we are after defintions we are after qualities not identities, so it probably wouldn't help you any - in other words the q is 'what is god like" - what unique distinguishing characteristics does he have that distinguishes him - hence the OP

“
actually, for the purpose of this thread you havce to submit defintiions of god (ie you have to offer qualities of god, not identities of god) that resist all attempts to be conceived of as being inferior - so your original notion about an assembly of gods seems to be defeated at the onset
”
Again I can only say it's like explaining electrons to high school dropouts - but I shall try nonetheless.

1) To be thorough the definition should have both "qualities" and "identities". The fact that they wear mini skirts is just as important to know as them also having the power to induce supernova's whenever they pass wind. However, to satisfy you I shall provide a list of qualities.

regarding identities, yes it is true - but first comes qualities (or properties) - like for instance suppose we were talking about fresh ripe apples - which of the following words would be defining

1. crunchy
2. luminous
3. salty
4. red
5. furry

- Eternal, (this only applies for however long they want it to apply)

not clear on what basis you assert that eternality is temporal

- Omnipotent, (they can do anything they want. They can even make square circles and stones so heavy they can't even lift them even though they have the power to lift them.. don't ask for an in depth explanation, it's like a high school dropout understanding electrons remember?)

actually its easy to explain - god's potencies are expanding and competing with each other - he can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift but then his quality of strength exceeds his creative potency and he can - and then his creative potency exceeds his strength potency - if god's potencies were not expanding,m they woul dnot be unlimited

- Omniscient, (although they can choose to un-know things if they want. They then become omniscient - 1, -2 and so on depending on how many things they decided to un-know).

once again its not clear why you write things in brackets

- Not omnipresent, (they disliked the sight and smell of being inside a humans bumhole so much they un-omnipresented themselves).

even the sun can evaporate urine and remain unaffected

That's a start although the list goes on.

in short it appears that you have the essence of an understanding but have a muddled theoretical basis

2) They're not interested who considers them 'inferior' and as such neither them nor I have to 'resist it'. Out of curiosity though why did you say I had to?

just because I said it doesn't mean that you have to (like for instance you could continue making obtuse humour) - but then I never said I was god

3) how was anything "defeated at the onset"? There's many of them, you're just a high school dropout trying to understand electrons. Having no direct contact with them, not being knowledgeable about them etc makes you... what is it you keep saying? Ah yes, "unqualified".

simple really - if 100 individuals are going around causing things independant from each other, then they are all disqualified from being the cause of all causes (notice how I am appealling to a sense of logic, quite distinct from an appeal of evidence, which is the basis that the highschool drop vs electron analogy works on)

“
if you read it with the same attention that you read the OP for this one, yes, th eoutcome will be predictable
”
Amusing but pointless.

I think something I might as well teach you now just so we can get it out the way is this...

Discussions evolve. I know, I know, you probably hate that word but it's true. Discussions are generally not that rigid that they don't often evolve to include other things. While rushing to accuse me of not paying attention you seemingly forgot all about that simple fact of life. This is a discussion forum, not a borg cube.

therefore it becomes a bit painful when someone enters a discussion to query something that was raised during the previous evolving (and is reluctant to pursue it when the thread is referenced for them)

“

read the OP
”
I read it.. what was your point?

What you're seemingly telling me is that you want me to define god while defining god under parameters that you set. What on earth is the point of that? Might as well just have you tell us your definition and be done with it.

"Define god, you can use anything but it must.."

How fucking stupid is that?[/QUOTE
at the very least, comparitavely less absurd than the endeavour to talk about defintions with out qualties

BTW what so you htink of my wheel barow?

“
If you read the OP it may help answer your query
”
I read it. In no way whatsoever does it help answer why there can't be 100 gods - unless you wrote it in invisible ink in which case I apologise.

"That enitity to whom no other entity can be be conceived of as greater."
the conception of 100 entities sharing the absolute position is inferior to the conception of 1 entity holding hat position
(If you read the OP with your dark glasses on you stand to be forgiven)

 

[lightgigantic]

You show no perpensity for discussion of any sort.

If you won't begin to address my definition of what Gods are, kindly take your red herrings, nonsequiturs, and miscellany of fallacies and go push them off on message board freshmen who are even less adept at reasoning than yourself- IF there are ANY.

Good Day.

thats the problem - I did address them but you just called them nonsequitors red herrings and the like and clammed up about it when I queried why you though so

Thus I caught the essence of your mood, which seems to be still blowing throughout your firmament, and assumed that you are not really interested in discussion

 

[qwerty mob]

What if <snip>

Sparticus had a Piper Cub -?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

I think all LG is after is to define something for which there is nothing superior.
LG then equates this to GOD, not realising that it is really just LG's God.

Actually if you read the OP, you would see that it was Anselm's

Other peoples' Gods don't necessarily need to be the most superior "thing" ever to have been.

then they don not fulfill the traditional definition of god (eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent etc)

Look at the Romans / Greeks - and their Pantheon of Gods - some smaller and lesser ones, but Gods nonetheless.

hence the word 'demigod'

LG's God is obviously, as he conceptualises God, "the most superior thing" - and he then appears to exclude all other Gods as otherwise inferior and thus not "the most superior thing" - and thus not God.

Well, whoop-di-doo.


"My God is better than your God".
Your OP, LG, might say that it is not an attempt to do this - but it is, nonetheless.

Puerile.

Actually, if you read the OP, you would see that it was a response to Syzygys somewhat antagonistic challenge (repeatedly claiming for challenges too BTW) to define god

And for any, and I mean any God you eventually come up with, I can come up with one that is superior to it...

Because the one I can come up with can make you think that the definition and qualities you give this "God" make nothing else superior, all the while knowing that there is something superior.

yes you have just given a quality of god - the ability to place any other entity in a state of bewilderment or illusion - your statement is remarkably similar to the opening verse of bhagavatam
"By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal."

He is also capable of making you think that if you try some similar conceptualisation for your own God that you will honestly believe it true, again all the while knowing that you are being fooled by him.

once again you draw statements remarkably similar to scripture

BG 7.21: I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity.

And that is something that from now on know makes your eventual conceptualisation / ideas inferior to mine.

its ironic that in your attempt to be sarcastic you call upon statements that bear a nearness to those in scripture

So I'd give up now - 'cos mine is superior to yours.
Always will be.

Nah nah na-nah nah!

lol - truth is stranger than fiction

Conceptions do not define reality. This is not a game of Mage: The Ascension. Whether athiests and thiests have different conceptions of God (which I doubt; I was a thiest once, it's not like I needed amnesia to drop my faith) it makes little difference to the reality of any omnipresent beings.

therefore I never alluded to conceptions defining reality - I did however press the point that defintions paint pictures of concepts (its difficult, or at least not very practical, to have a concept that you cannot attribute qualties to)

 

[lightgigantic]

What if our Universe had one supreme God, but this being wasn't the only other being besides humans. For example, what if we had a God which lived in on a certain plain of existence and which created the Universe and our plain of existence. Whose to say that our God is alone? Our God may be part of a biiger picture of existence which we have absolutely no way of conceptualizing.

then such a god would not be omnipotent (since you allude to other universes that are beyond his jurisdiction)

 

[lightgigantic]

Skinwalker
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Actually its common sense - I doubt you can provide evidence of anything that doesn't rest on a definition/conception - if such things are absent it becomes impossible to distinguish evidence from non-evidence, since you don't know what you are looking for.
”

Complete and utter crap. Just because you can imagine something, doesn't mean it can exist in reality. Nor does it mean your imagination was true. This thread isn't about "defining a god," its about paying attention to LG's imagination. I'm starting to see it straight now. I've accused you many times of using cowardly tactics and being intellectually dishonest, but, until now, I've not known the reason.

actually the thread is not about claims of reality - it is about claims (ie defintitions) - like for instance one could argue whether fairies exist in reality or not, but before such an argument takes place there must be a definition of what a fairy is (ie what are their distinct qualties/properties) - otherwise one could make the mistake of talking about wheelbarrows

You're just an attention seeker.

given the length of your posts and the frequency of your ad homs, you seem to be envious

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You cannot even talk of fairies without fulfilling this requirement
”

The difference is, "conceptualizing" fairies doesn't make them present or real.

therefore I never said it did

We can all "conceptualize" a fairy, share our conceptions and arrive at a consensus of what the ideal fairy should be. We can even draw pictures and dress up like fairies from our "conceptualizations." But, in the end, the fairies are still among our imaginations.

agreed

People have been doing the same things with gods for as long as there've been people. Not a single god has shown itself. Their just as imaginative as the fairies.

I could addess this, but not in this thread, since it is dealing with the stage before that - namely definitons - feel free to start up another thread (or rehash one of the innumerable ones) that deals with this issue specifically

Which brings us back to the difference: most people don't try to suggest fairies are real, and when they do, few object to the many who accuse them of being crazy. Why shouldn't theists be treated any differently?

for a starter most people in the world don't worship fairies (at least if you were to ask them whether they worship a fairy they would reply in the negative- and given, as evidenced by this thread, most atheists don't even have a firm grip on the defintion they are seeking to sink, their claims get be counted amongst those who disclaim wheelbarows to be fairies

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Regardless of your opinions, the thread deals with the idea that the defintion of god (outside of evidence or no evidence) is 'that which no one can conceive of as greater than' - your conception of god is something that is concocted by human society so it becomes easy to defeat, since the conception of a god that is not concocted is superior to a god that is.
”

And, regardless of your opinions, the OP is utter bullshit and is now diverging.

Its intriguing how you say an OP can diverge from the OP, particularly when it can be reduced to one phrase - it seems like you are hell bent to diverge it - why don't you just start up another one or rehash an already existing one (there is one by PJ - prerequisites for spiritual knowledge)

We're past your silly "requirements" and now we're offering our own. Get over it. You've demonstrated that your imagination is more active than mine, I concede. Now show us the evidence of your fairy. I mean god.

A bit difficult since we haven't even settled on a definition yet (its not apparent to me that you even know what I am talking about when I use the word 'god', much like a person who thinks that the word 'fairy' defines a wheel barrow)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(BTW the purpose of this thread, hopefully, is to make clear what is the exact definition of god that a theist works with- naturally the conception of god that an atheist works with is not superior since such conceptions don't warrant worship by the atheist advocate, so its pointless to bring them up in this thread)
”

More cowardly BS/intellectual dishonesty. An atheist has at least the understanding of a god that a theist has. Indeed, the atheist is more qualified to "conceive" of gods and work with definitions since most theists reject out-of-hand all versions of "god" that don't fit their own delusions. The atheist is far more qualified, in general, to discuss such things. Indeed, if anyone is unqualified, it is the credulous and deceivers such as yourself. Leave matters of belief and religion to the social scientists (anthropologists, psychologists, etc). The theists are obviously too wrapped up in their delusions to see the issue from objective position. The atheistic social scientists, however, are not clouded by such religiocentric views and seek only to find out what people believe.

regardless of your opinions, in terms of the merits of conceptions, the atheists opinion (that god is imaginative) does not present a concept that is superior to the theists (that god is real) - the idea is that a real thing is superior to an imaginative thing (obviously) - this thread is elaborating on what the theists definition of god is (outiside of jurisdictions of christian/muslim/hindu for the sake of our easily ruffled atheistic audience) - of course you are free to elaborate on what the atheists concept of god is, but this is not the thread for it, since it takes upon itself the mere humble task of definitions, and such atheistic definitions of god (imagination, socially construcetd etc) automatically bite the dust in comparison to a thesists (the cause of all causes etc)

Moreover, the atheist, in most cases, need only remember when he/she was a theist. After all, many atheists are so because of their enlightenment through education, having been indoctrinated as children as theists.

I was an atheist (it wasn't until several years after I finished my uni education that I readily identified myself as a theist) - but this whole argument of yours is infantile - its just like trying to assert whether atheists or theists have the monopoly on brown hair

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Cowards way? It is the way of recognizing who is qualified in what field, without which it is impossible to determine whether one should consult a lawyer or a fruit vendow in times of legal difficulty - its actually the intelligent way
”

So you accept the validity of those that would consider themselves to be "fairyologists?"

If I wanted to know about the definition of what a fairy was, regardless of whether I thought they were real or not, yes

What are *your* qualifications, LG?

rather than assert what I am or what I am not, it is better to assert what are the qualifications for the different stations of life - passages like this can be illuminating

SB 11.25.2-5: Mind and sense control, tolerance, discrimination, sticking to one's prescribed duty, truthfulness, mercy, careful study of the past and future, satisfaction in any condition, generosity, renunciation of sense gratification, faith in the spiritual master, being embarrassed at improper action, charity, simplicity, humbleness and satisfaction within oneself are qualities of the mode of goodness. Material desire, great endeavor, audacity, dissatisfaction even in gain, false pride, praying for material advancement, considering oneself different and better than others, sense gratification, rash eagerness to fight, a fondness for hearing oneself praised, the tendency to ridicule others, advertising one's own prowess and justifying one's actions by one's strength are qualities of the mode of passion. Intolerant anger, stinginess, speaking without scriptural authority, violent hatred, living as a parasite, hypocrisy, chronic fatigue, quarrel, lamentation, delusion, unhappiness, depression, sleeping too much, false expectations, fear and laziness constitute the major qualities of the mode of ignorance. Now please hear about the combination of these three modes.

Rather than address questions of evidence, it's much easier for the proponent of theistic superstition to shift the burden of proof or hide it altogether, eh?

whats good for the goose is good for the gander

If you don't like being pinned down, just say, "oh, your not qualified to question me and mine, so bugger off." This, my friend, is the coward's way.

they also might say the same thing to you if you insisted on performing open heart surgery at your local hospital this afternoon

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
yes but it may not be detectable to everyone - much like radiation
so your claim that an omnipresent thing should be evident to anyone and everyone is straight out silliness
”

No. Your intellectual dishonesty in this thread is 'straight out silliness.' The radiation is potentially detectable by anyone.

yes - anyone with the special instruments to detect radiation

I need only put the right instrument or meter in front of them; or show them the predictable results of longterm exposure; or any number of other methods.

then it seems it is not detectable to everyone and anyone, since you are introducing specific qualifications for detecting it (having the necessary equipment and the ability to operate and read it)

The fairy of your imagination has no such instrument, meter, or predictable results that exist to measure it -outside of your imagination. So you can "conceptualize" all you want, the only way to demonstrate the existence is through belief.

if a person had a dogmatic refusal to reject the claims made by radiation experts and persons capable of reading and operating (as well as teaching th e reading and operating) of radiation detection equipment, you would have the same situation

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I never used the word 'believer'
just like detecting radiation requires special qualifications of the seer, just like detecting an electron require special qualifications of the seer, in the same way detecting the nature of the transcendental requires special qualifications, much like the detection of absolutely anything, it requires special or at least specific qualfications
”

Complete and utter bullshit. This is the main example of LG's intellectual dishonesty. Rather than hold a reasoned discussion with reality-based information, he retreats to the comfort of "ah, you're just not qualified to know."

then I challenge you to present ANY type of knowledge that grants direct perception that is not dependant on meeting specific criteria - seems like you have failed already with the radiation eg

That he's eager to have discussions with those that are willing to assist in masturbating his ego, yet unwilling to address criticisms that are legitimate is evidence of this intellectual dishonesty.

Its apparent from your constant charcater assasination attempts that you are the one making constant allusions to 'who has the greatest ego' - there are numerous contributors on this site, but its only the one who cannot sepearte a person from their ideas (regardless whether they are atheist/theistic) that brings the whole thing down to the platform of an assembly of barking dogs

Before you can say that there are "transcendental" qualities that elude those without "special qualifications," you must first demonstrate that these "transcendental" qualities exist.

Some important q's you should ask yourself

don't we have to define those qualities first ?
if you want to talk about how fairies are real/unreal, don't you have to distinguish them from, say, a wheelbarrow?
Isn't there another thread (prerequisites for spiritual knowledge) that deals with the specific issue you want to discuss?
Isn't it pointless to discuss that thread unless you are familiar with what are the claims of transcendental knowledge?

The burden of proof is on you. And you most certainly *did* use the word believer. Only you spell it differently than I do. For, isn't "special or at least specific qualifications" just another way to say "believer?"

I reccommend you throw away this dictionary of yours - it doesn't enable you to distinguish between a medical practioner qualified by education and experience and charlatan with mineral water and sodium tablets

if you want to label the high school drop out thing as a straw man or an eg. of intellectual dishonesty, you have to establish what is unique about the person who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to spiritual life that does not tally with a molecular physicist who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to molecular physics.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Until you do this, to spill out with claims of 'straw man', 'intellectual dishonesty', 'poppycock' etc is jumping the gun
”
Not at all. It *is* a straw man and it *is* intellectual dishonesty. You're mixing reality with fantasy and calling them the same.

let me guess - you have never formally studied philosophy or done any deep reading on the subject (sigh)

For those that don't know of the electron or radiation, it can potentially be shown or explained to them.

potentially, yes

There are no "special qualifications" beyond simply being of normal human intelligence.

if there were no special qualifications, you wouldn't have to use the word 'potentially'

Your straw man was thoroughly debunked by one or more other members (i.e. Cris) in other threads.

so you keep saying, yet it seems the crux of his apparently debunking argument evades your ability to either recall or locate

Yet you still bring it up as though it is a legitimate argument for your theistic delusions. The only hope another theist has of "observing" your "conception" is by believing in your imagination. This is called delusion.

all you are arguing is "the claims of theists are false because the claims of theism is false" - when you have the means to break out of this circular reasoning let us know

 

[lightgigantic]

Medicine Woman

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Medicine woman, given that we cannot even remember what it was like in the womb, its not apparent why
”
*************
M*W: But how do you know we can't remember what the womb was like? Just because we cannot recall our time there, doesn't mean we don't have genetic memory of it. We are unaware how our life in the womb may play a role in our future existence. It's been my experience, from talking to mothers who have borne and raised children, that life in the womb may play a role in the life of the child.
the same argument is there for past or future lives - you may say you cannot remember it, but given that you probably can't remember what you were doing ten days ago at this particular moment in time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it sthe fundamental fault of empirical claims of reality - namely imperfect senses. Of course, this study is unofficial and based on my professional opinion only. What I believe is that fetuses who "cling" to the womb, in other words, those who go beyond their "due date," have delayed maturation leading to delayed independence at adulthood. Those who have precipitious births are more likely to be independent and go on their own right after high school, for example. I can't say this study has been scientific, because no measurements or controls have been used to substantiate my theory. My conclusions come from observation and interviews only. So, we really don't know what influence the womb has on us, but I wouldn't discount it as nothing. After all, it's our mother's womb which has created us.

the same argument is there for past or future lives - you may say you cannot remember it, but given that you probably can't remember what you were doing ten days ago at this particular moment in time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it sthe fundamental fault of empirical claims of reality - namely imperfect senses

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Medicine Woman


the same argument is there for past or future lives - you may say you cannot remember it, but given that you probably can't remember what you were doing ten days ago at this particular moment in time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it sthe fundamental fault of empirical claims of reality - namely imperfect senses

*************
M*W: Ten days? I don't remember 5 minutes ago...

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Ten days? I don't remember 5 minutes ago...

then its not clear why you made this statement

*************
M*W: If there were a god, it (god) would not only be recognized by a "certain class of people," but would be recognized by every human being from the time (or even before) they were born!

in response to this

“
lightgigantic: therefore god is proven to a certain class of people (ie saintly people or persons who have successfully applied spiritual methods).
”

 

[Medicine*Woman]

then its not clear why you made this statement in response to this

*************
M*W: Lighten up, LG. I was just trying to poke humor at myself.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Lighten up, LG. I was just trying to poke humor at myself.

ok - no problem

 

[methusala35]

Gods Name

Wow, this is a great forum.

I think I could only refer anyone to the name of God. I am that I am.

I think that is the only definition that I'll get. You might be able to get another.

God is. Like good ole Godel said, in any system there are statements that are true that cannot be proved.

God is a bit like zen to me. Define what is beyond definition. Speak about what cannot be spoken of.

Great discussion tho. interesting to find in the science world of today.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus
true - they could, but many do not - for instance many atheists refuse to work with the concept that god is the cause of all causes

Then work with the DEFINITION they supply - NOT WITH THE FACT THEY ARE ATHEIST!
All you are doing here is reinforcing your logical fallacy - by looking at the person and not what is being said.

I am just saying that an atheists conception of god is inferior -

And I am just saying that this is UTTER BOLLOCKS.
It is a logical fallacy of generalisation.
It is also, as stated, an attempt at an appeal to authority (actually the reverse - refuting their argument on who they are, not on the argument they put forward).

...like for instance the concept of a god that i s not the cause of all causes is inferior to a god that is - and sincethe OP of this thread suggests that the very concept of god is that entity to whom no one can conceive of as greater, the god that is not the cause of all causes doesn't cut the mustard

Here you actually argue against a definition - which is good.
But by assigning this to all atheists (fallacy of generalisation) and then going from there to words to the effect of "all atheists' concepts are thus inferior" is a gross fallacy of logic.

you are right - it is not a question of atheism or theism - it is a question of definition...

Then STOP arguing against the person and argue against the points they raise.

But from the way you answered my original criticism I really don't think you fully understand - or at least not enough to stop doing it.
So I suggest you, and indeed anyone, follows these two simple steps to debating:
1. Don't generalise - if you are arguing against an entire group be sure that each members of that group are within the remit of your argument. E.g. it is okay to generalise that all theists believe in God, but not to generalise that all theists are church-goers.

2. Read the post and ignore the poster - by which I mean that it should not matter who says something - it is only what they say that is important. To debate in any other way is a logical fallacy.

I could add other points at length - especially about RED HERRINGS and STRAW MEN arguments - but this is not really the thread for it.

Anyhoo - let the fun continue.

 

[SnakeLord]

the high school analogy is brought up on the issue of evidence, not definition

The reason for you to state "it raises problems", is based upon the fact that you do not know or understand these gods and their defining characteristics and nothing else. As such the high school analogy stands.

The only 'problem' here is your inability to realise that you cannot ask for people's personal definitions while telling them what that definition must or must not contain.

then if one created something with a click then another would exist in a universe that bore an effect that they didn't cause - and since they are all clicking their fingers like this, it appears they all lose claim to the title 'cause of all causes'

None of them are interested in having a title - it is of no value or relevance. The gods have always been and one of them clicked his finger to create us and the universe. Other gods have done other things, it's not a big deal. To them the universe is the size of a small marble, and there's many such marbles. When one creates a marble the others are not forced to exist within that marble, it's just a marble.

Stop trying to impose limits on the gods when you clearly know nothing about them or their methods.

I wasn't aware chess players weren't frustrated (particularly the loser)

Guess you don't play much chess. However, you're looking at it from a human perspective. You have to stop doing that if you're ever going to understand it.

like for instance suppose we were talking about fresh ripe apples

Fresh ripe apples heh..

I've provided you with what I know of these gods.. you for some reason don't like it which is hardly my concern or their concern. I think you need to get over the limits you think you can place upon gods and take more time to understand the gods themselves. Upon doing so you will realise the worthlessness of your statements.

not clear on what basis you assert that eternality is temporal

Of course you're not, and without sounding rude that's entirely your problem. The gods are what they are whether you understand it or not.

actually its easy to explain - god's potencies are expanding and competing with each other - he can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift but then his quality of strength exceeds his creative potency and he can - and then his creative potency exceeds his strength potency - if god's potencies were not expanding,m they woul dnot be unlimited

Well no, not really. It was a fair enough attempt for a human uneducated in the ways of the gods though I suppose.

once again its not clear why you write things in brackets

Because.... I feel like it?

even the sun can evaporate urine and remain unaffected

Thats good for the sun, no really it is.. :bugeye: What has the sun evaporating urine got to do with the gods deciding not to be omnipresent because they fail to see any personal benefit of being up your bumhole?

in short it appears that you have the essence of an understanding but have a muddled theoretical basis

A bold statement from someone clearly uneducated to the ways of the gods. You have a rather small and limited view - expecting everyone and everything to confirm to that small and limited view. This debate is clearly about you trying to make the gods what you want them to be, not what they are. It's daft.

just because I said it doesn't mean that you have to (like for instance you could continue making obtuse humour) - but then I never said I was god

Let me try again, it seems the question wasn't understood: Why did you say I had to? Clearly I am aware that I didn't have to do what you said I had to, (because I didn't do it), but that's not what the question asked. You think you'll ever understand the gods if you don't understand simple human questions?

simple really - if 100 individuals are going around causing things independant from each other, then they are all disqualified from being the cause of all causes (notice how I am appealling to a sense of logic, quite distinct from an appeal of evidence, which is the basis that the highschool drop vs electron analogy works on)

There is no logic in your statement at all. What is the value of 'cause of all causes'? I've explained how it is, and no matter how you try and shove the gods over to be what you want them to be you'll never succeed because that's not how they are. Your human mind wont be able to comprehend it, (and thus a high school dropout vs electrons - which actually works in various different scenarios, mainly when someone cannot comprehend something because of their own limits/lack of knowledge). Sorry, did the bracket offend you?

The gods have always been.. The universe is but a marble to them. It is insignificant which one of them caused it. That's one of the simpler concepts to grasp.

therefore it becomes a bit painful when someone enters a discussion to query something that was raised during the previous evolving (and is reluctant to pursue it when the thread is referenced for them)

The error lies completely on you - trying to put limits while telling people to define god. You have no valid basis with which to impose those limits - they just show the limits you have in understanding otherwise you wouldn't have imposed them. I am pursuing this discussion in the manner that it deserves, you are trying to limit it to your own wants and understanding which doesn't apply to anyone else. As I said earlier, if that's how you want it just give us your definition and be done with it.

at the very least, comparitavely less absurd than the endeavour to talk about defintions with out qualties

Spend some time thinking about it would you? I gave you qualities, defining characteristics and as much information as I can regarding the gods. You don't like it because it goes against your limited view of what a god is.

BTW what so you htink of my wheel barow?

I have no interest in your wheel barrow.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

true - they could, but many do not - for instance many atheists refuse to work with the concept that god is the cause of all causes
”
Then work with the DEFINITION they supply - NOT WITH THE FACT THEY ARE ATHEIST!

I did
the atheist offers a definition that god is socially constructed and it falls flat on its face before the established OP (a god conceived of not being socially constructed is superior to it)

All you are doing here is reinforcing your logical fallacy - by looking at the person and not what is being said.

an atheist is free to offer a higher definition of god

“
Originally Posted by LG
I am just saying that an atheists conception of god is inferior -
”
And I am just saying that this is UTTER BOLLOCKS.
It is a logical fallacy of generalisation.
It is also, as stated, an attempt at an appeal to authority (actually the reverse - refuting their argument on who they are, not on the argument they put forward).

Actually its an appeal to the OP - if you have fundamental differences with the OP then I guess the only solution is to open your own thread

“
Originally Posted by LG
...like for instance the concept of a god that i s not the cause of all causes is inferior to a god that is - and sincethe OP of this thread suggests that the very concept of god is that entity to whom no one can conceive of as greater, the god that is not the cause of all causes doesn't cut the mustard
”
Here you actually argue against a definition - which is good.
But by assigning this to all atheists (fallacy of generalisation) and then going from there to words to the effect of "all atheists' concepts are thus inferior" is a gross fallacy of logic.

I am unaware of any atheist definition of god that is not mundane (and hence empowers them to be an atheist)

“
Originally Posted by LG
you are right - it is not a question of atheism or theism - it is a question of definition...
”
Then STOP arguing against the person and argue against the points they raise.

well so far the points raised by atheists are along the lines of "No - god is an imagination" to which I respond (in line with the OP) a god that is real is superior to a god that is imagined

But from the way you answered my original criticism I really don't think you fully understand - or at least not enough to stop doing it.
So I suggest you, and indeed anyone, follows these two simple steps to debating:
1. Don't generalise - if you are arguing against an entire group be sure that each members of that group are within the remit of your argument. E.g. it is okay to generalise that all theists believe in God, but not to generalise that all theists are church-goers.

2. Read the post and ignore the poster - by which I mean that it should not matter who says something - it is only what they say that is important. To debate in any other way is a logical fallacy.

good advice