Definition of God - one thread to rule them all
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
I imagine it is hard to argue, when you don't even understand the "simple" wiki you cite.
There's nothing clever about your obvious lying.
The ellipsis (...) you inserted there omitted:
"Ontology is the part of metaphysics which discusses what exists: the categories of being. Apart from ontology, metaphysics concerns the nature of, and relations among, the things that exist.
The metaphysical idea that reality exists independently of one's mind and yet can be known is called realism."
So you clearly did omit the bit about realism there, and quoted the bit about idealism, even though you claim to be a realist. What's much more likely is that you comprehend neither, as you touting Bohm's implicate order is an idealist position...because Bohm was an idealist. https://medium.com/@predmetskyrosen...ical-implications-of-his-quantum-51565d7167ecThe metaphysical idea that reality exists independently of one's mind and yet can be known is called realism."
I don't think you have any clue what that means. Posting a link and quoting the bit about idealism, while claiming to be a realist who agrees with the idealist Bohm, is incoherent ignorance on full display. No wonder you have such blind faith in science. You obviously don't understand it any more than the most mystic of religions.
Utter gibberish. Numerology, at best.
Considering you got that relationship between God and agency from me, you're obviously lying.
Defend my claim that I just don't believe as you do? Most young children learn that others genuinely have their own thoughts (theory of mind). You're not on the autistic spectrum, are you?
LOL! You're an endless source of hilarious nonsense. Don't know why I had you on ignore, or even contemplated putting you back on it.
Here's the simple wiki for you:
The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle known as the Higgs boson, which is used by the field to continuously interact with other particles, such as the electron. Particles that interact with the field are "given" mass and, in a similar fashion to an object passing through a treacle (or molasses), will become slower as they pass through it. The result of a particle "gaining" mass from the field is the prevention of its ability to travel at the speed of light.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field
Fields are not metaphysical, as they are regularly dealt with in physic, like electromagnetism and quantum field theory. So now we can't even be sure you know the difference between science and metaphysics. That would certainly explain the way you ignorantly mix science and woo though. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field
Theoretical science is not metaphysics. That a theist, of all people, has to be the one to tell you that, on a science forum, is either an indictment of the comprehension or intellectual honesty of those who read it or evidence that many here have long since ignored you.
Nah, that's just you making up bs. Or maybe you're actually ignorant enough to think that criticism of speculative science, without evidence, is somehow criticism of established science, with evidence.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
paddo
Pronunciation /ˈpadəʊ/
noun
dialect Scottish, British, Irish
A frog or toad.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/paddo
Pronunciation /ˈpadəʊ/
noun
dialect Scottish, British, Irish
A frog or toad.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/paddo
paddo
Pronunciation /ˈpadəʊ/
noun
dialect Scottish, British, Irish
A frog or toad.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/paddo
Jesus Christ, I mean how far did you need to go to find that definition! And Spanish?? Sorry I'm pissing you off so much, [actually I'm pissing myself laughing]but the facts are that Vociferous means only one thing.....as is detailed in 11 links on page 1 of google.The same holds for the meaning of paddo...
all detailed on page 1!As I also noted elsewhere, I see that I have prompted you into changing your "vociferous" avatar [meaning forceful loud mouthed] to what looks like a big loud mouth.
So much for your psychology degree...try reasonable common sense, it will take you further.
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
LOL! Spanish? I guess you don't know that the "en" in that link means English (Spanish is "es" for espanol), and couldn't manage to read where it explicitly says the dialect is "Scottish, British, Irish".
https://www.google.com/search?q=paddo
Third result, and the first one that's a legit definition.
I'm glad your ignorance amuses you so much.
You're awfully full of yourself. Like responding to you, I only changed my avatar because I got bored.
LOL! Who ever said I had a psychology degree? That presumption is awful telling.
Third result? Not where I'm sitting...Seems like physchotic delusions again on your part.
What's amusing me and most others by the looks of it, is how you squirm, twist, evade, lie, and misinterpret anything and everything that debunks your mythical design possibilities.
Me full of myself? Coming from someone whose posts reflect the most undesirable human qualities that one can imagine, just adds irony and hypocrisy to your rhetorical nonsense.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
W4U said; OTOH, the way matter and objects are expressed are local value densities arranged in self-forming mathematically related physical patterns. Hence they do not need a Sentient Designer, just the Fibonacci Sequence......
Is that the extent of your scientific knowledge? The Fibonacci sequence is "numerology"? Metaphysics, religion?
I can prove the existence of the Fibonacci sequence throughout the Universe, a self-organizing sequential process based on the natural selection of an efficient vertical growth process, an evolutionary survival advantage.
If I were religious my claim would be that God invented The Fibonaccy sequence as part of his Intelligent Design.
Now that would be an valid argument from a scientific POV, except of course that it is not true. The Fibonacci Sequence is a natural self-ordering mathematical sequence, no Agency necessary...
I'm not lying, you're slip-slidin all over the metaphorical place, except answering the question directly. Yes or No? Simple.
But now you don't want to commit yourself publicly to Intelligent Design (Agency)? Typical...
But from your previous answers I'll accept that you defined God as "Agency". Now, to be scientifically correct in that assessment, you're gonna need to prove that with some evidence.
Prove God has/had Agency . Remember, now you can't use the Fibonacci sequence anymore as proof of ID. After all, we don't want to dabble in"numerology" now, do we.......
p.s. You know this question of Agency (Intelligent Design was settled in a Court of Law, based on the evidence presented by the litigants. Agency (ID) was "proven" falsen scientifically debunked.
And that proves children are made in the image of god? You better learn some science before you start comparing subjective experience with objective reality.
Seems that's where you are having difficulties. You believe that the mind, a product of the brain, is "agency" in the image of God, no? If so, does God experience "optical illusions", like you do....?
Learn this from Anil Seth; "The brain can only make a "best guess" from the sensory information it receives and processes".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Obviously someone was giving you much too much credit. But if you insist, I'll agree, you know nothing about psychology or any other science for that matter, how's that? Seems we have finally reached clarity as to the extent of your "understanding".
God has Agency.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". And the Word had Agency?
Well, "shiver me timbers".........
Last edited:
There is no universal definition for god. That's why I always ask for a definition when someone asks me if I believe. Even then, agreement usually breaks down rather quickly.
I mean, if someone tells me that the universe is god... OK - I can play that game. But when they then try to attach moral implications to it, I have to question how they make that leap of logic.
I mean, if someone tells me that the universe is god... OK - I can play that game. But when they then try to attach moral implications to it, I have to question how they make that leap of logic.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I have the same problem with the entire concept of a "metaphysical sentient intelligence", i.e. the Universe is an Intelligent Design by a sentient God.
There is no Supernatural Intelligent Design, an expressed product of Agency. There is only Natural Mathematical Design, an expressed product of Evolution by Natural Selection......
What are the 5 types of natural selection?
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/adaptive-evolution/
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
I gave you the exact link I used. Maybe try clearing your search history. Make sure it's not suggesting pedo for paddo.
I've already proven that my scientific understanding far outstrips yours, by repeatedly refuting your ignorance using your own ill-comprehended citations.
No one said the golden ratio was numerology. Only that your stringing together of words is gibberish, and you believing numbers hold some great significance is essentially mysticism. No one said metaphysics was religion.
Who said you were religious?!
Apparently you don't remember criticizing my answer to the "image of God" thread, where I clearly said that image was agency. And now you're trying to pretend I haven't answered that exact question. Why are you pretending that saying God is a causal agent is some kind of gotcha for a theist? And I've repeatedly told you that evolution does not contradict creation.
I've never defined God as agency. God has agency. And? Never said it was a scientific claim, no matter how much your blind faith demands everything be so.
You're ignorant of all metaphysics if you think anything about them can be proven. I've never used anything as evidence, much less proof, of ID, because I've never argued for ID. If you want to start a new thread on the subject, we can discuss it, but you constantly just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, while being roundly refuted on your woeful scientific illiteracy, is desperate and pitiful.
No, that's just you demonstrating more of your ignorance, incapable of even distinguishing law from science, just like you failed to distinguish science from metaphysics. Legal rulings have nothing to do with scientific validity, otherwise the Catholic church ruling on Galileo would have been science. See what utter nonsense you're talking? No? Dunning-Kruger got you by the nose?
That had nothing to do with the image of God at all. That was about your seeming inability to understand that others have their own beliefs, that are valid to them whether you agree or not. IOW, there's no need to defend beliefs to the satisfaction of anyone else. And no one compared subjective experience to objective reality. That's another in a long list of your straw men, or just plain ignorance. Nor did anyone said the mind was God, so add that to the list as well.
And? Who disputed that at all? But hey, at least you're finally quoting a realist.
The oft repeated evidence of your scientific illiteracy to the contrary of any ability of yours to judge. Considering I've repeatedly proven to know more science and metaphysics than you, you really shouldn't tempt fate and prove you're illiterate of psychology as well.
No clearing necessary matey...just more of your typical excuse making etc for your here Trump and some magical sky daddy.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Wow, you're really trusting that others are too lazy to simply click the link and see for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=paddo
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You have repeatedly tried discredit my posts, without any success. Just saying you have refuted something does not make it so.
You're standing naked in the village square......
Thanks...confirms exactly what I have been saying, where I lived as a tin lid and where I went to school....are you drunk? stoned? head in the sand?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Wow, what barefaced projection. I roundly refute all your ignorance, you can't even muster an attempt at supporting, and you're deluded enough to pretend otherwise. Should I post the links to all the corrections I've given you, and that you've failed to gainsay?
https://www.google.com/search?q=paddo
Again, anyone can click the link and see for themselves, at least in the US. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I did the same search through an Aussie proxy. No wonder you Aussies are so ignorant. Who knows how many pages in before it offers even one definition. If I were you, I'd search through a US proxy.
Here, try this one, that returns the definition I found as the first result (from US or Aussie proxy):
I sometimes get the feeling Science is pushing on a very thin but strong opaque barrier with theist on the other side, in cahoots with their non existent god pushing back
How they got to the other side is a mystery but they must be there because they are always telling us what god wants for us
How they got to the other side is a mystery but they must be there because they are always telling us what god wants for us
First results!!! Liar liar, pants on fire!! Not interested either in any of your other childish like excuse making attempts
Us ignorant Aussies are a few steps up the rung from some of you silly gun toting rednecks, that is certain.
Perhaps the problem with you lot is too much Tom Mix and Hppalong Cassidy when you were kids..