That's a completely different question when you decide to take God out of the equation. Now, you're actually talking about origins, which of course would have to exist or else we wouldn't be here.
Definition of God - one thread to rule them all
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
That's a completely different question when you decide to take God out of the equation. Now, you're actually talking about origins, which of course would have to exist or else we wouldn't be here.
Just a thought bubble here
Lots of chit chat about the definition of god - OK
But just over 100 post how many contain just a definition? how many just chit chat? how many a mix?
Also has anyone copy / paste the definitions into some sort of off site file ready to post the collection in a single post?
Just a thought bubble
Lots of chit chat about the definition of god - OK
But just over 100 post how many contain just a definition? how many just chit chat? how many a mix?
Also has anyone copy / paste the definitions into some sort of off site file ready to post the collection in a single post?
Just a thought bubble
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The word God should be treated as the same as nature, physics and chemistry all rolled into one and not identified as a he or she or even an it..and not seen to have intelligence or purpose ..a non entity...just the rules of science in a non personal way..so god does not do things but nature , as embodied by physics science chemistry dictates how things work...there is no sin other than sprouting unevidenced creator type gods and human gods exist when they clearly do not exist in a real sense.
If you pray you can treat it as thinking out aloud wishing for whatever outcome knowing that things will happen as they will and talking to yourself probably won't help. Having a pet to talk to is preferable.
Then if you have your bible you can read a story and fit it to what nature dictates...like the flood is a story showing how nature can deliver mass extinction and if you have some breeding stock the world will recover. No need to think of it literally. That the ark was a metaphor in effect for eco system and Noah perhaps represents the endangered species.
Alex
If you pray you can treat it as thinking out aloud wishing for whatever outcome knowing that things will happen as they will and talking to yourself probably won't help. Having a pet to talk to is preferable.
Then if you have your bible you can read a story and fit it to what nature dictates...like the flood is a story showing how nature can deliver mass extinction and if you have some breeding stock the world will recover. No need to think of it literally. That the ark was a metaphor in effect for eco system and Noah perhaps represents the endangered species.
Alex
Vociferous:
Bowser defined God to be "all things". This means that car radiators are God and entire cars are God. As I pointed out in post #9, with that definition it becomes meaningless to talk about "God and car radiators" or "God and cars" as if they are different. Those statements, by definition, become tautological. Car radiators are God, so "God and car radiators" translates as "God and God".
Bowser did not say that all things are parts of a greater thing called God. Remember that I asked for his definition of God. To say that all things are parts of God doesn't define what God is. It just says that God has some parts that have been identified.
Coming back to the car example: if I were to ask you for your definition of "car" and you said "a car is tyres, a radiator, a fusebox, a steering wheel, a driver's seat, a sun roof, etc. etc." then the radiator would be the car, according to your definition. If, on the other hand, you said "a car is a collection of parts that include tyres, a radiator, etc." then in my opinion you'd have a more sensible definition of a car.
I can only work with what the Believers give me to work with, Vociferous. Maybe you can help peg down the definitions of your fellow theists to make them more sensible and workable.
I'm still waiting on your definition, by the way. Are you keeping it a secret? Are you afraid that Bowser might take issue with your definition in the same way you're taking issue with his?
Yeah, okay. I'll walk you through it again, more slowly.
Bowser defined God to be "all things". This means that car radiators are God and entire cars are God. As I pointed out in post #9, with that definition it becomes meaningless to talk about "God and car radiators" or "God and cars" as if they are different. Those statements, by definition, become tautological. Car radiators are God, so "God and car radiators" translates as "God and God".
Bowser did not say that all things are parts of a greater thing called God. Remember that I asked for his definition of God. To say that all things are parts of God doesn't define what God is. It just says that God has some parts that have been identified.
You got it!
Yeah. You can ask him, you know.
How can God be all things and each thing not be wholly God? That definition would say "God is all things and some other stuff we aren't mentioning that isn't all things."
Coming back to the car example: if I were to ask you for your definition of "car" and you said "a car is tyres, a radiator, a fusebox, a steering wheel, a driver's seat, a sun roof, etc. etc." then the radiator would be the car, according to your definition. If, on the other hand, you said "a car is a collection of parts that include tyres, a radiator, etc." then in my opinion you'd have a more sensible definition of a car.
I can only work with what the Believers give me to work with, Vociferous. Maybe you can help peg down the definitions of your fellow theists to make them more sensible and workable.
I'm still waiting on your definition, by the way. Are you keeping it a secret? Are you afraid that Bowser might take issue with your definition in the same way you're taking issue with his?
Bowser did not say that God is comprised of all things. He said God is all things.
You didn't understand the point I was making? Figures.
Yeah, I see what you're doing. Hiding.
Last edited:
Yes, and as I told you earlier, that makes the word "Energy" superfluous. Alex's example was good. Why say "I'm going down to the shops to get some milk" when you really mean "God is going down to the God to get some God" - or even "God God God God God God God God God God"?
transcendental (a.):
1. existing outside of or not in accordance with nature;
2. Of or characteristic of a system of philosophy emphasising the intuitive and the spiritual above the empirical and material.
Enlightening. Thanks, Jan!
It can't. But you're assuming a "transcendental" origin. There's another option you haven't considered.
What option is that?
You’re very welcome James.
With the first question, you invoked God and the second one was without God, right?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I hope you are still not sulking Jan... your answers seem rather brief.
It seems more likely that the Universe is eternal so there is no origin ...
It is a wise man who can contemplate a stick without ends...I don't know who said that but I make it clear I do not claim to be the author...
Alex
What you call the origin and what science has theorized the origin to be are two different things. One can be demonstrated by observations and what we know about the universe while the other cannot. Big difference.
A non-transcendental origin, of course.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You can cite science if you like but nothing beats that good old gut feeling of knowing you are right..Jan has that and us lesser folk can only bow down in awe.
If Jan offers an answer you can be content it is true and for that moment overlook the various times he has lied and crab stepped. This time it is the truth and he is not lieing.
We all know the universe is eternal given the big bang deals with the start of its evolution with something hot and dense which tells us there has always been something presumably a quantum foam but clearly always something..eternal.. and therefore no creator as there clearly never was a point of creation that even with all our current science we have identified...anyways until something better comes along an eternal universe is clearly the most likely even though that prospect gets Jan in a lather. I say it is up to him to show a better model and if he can not an eternal creatorless universe is what we have.
But don't say to him the universe is clearly eternal as he realises that is the only answer and goes into a tail spin realising all the nonsense he believes is merely a con perpetrated for no other reason than to receive him of his cash...
I shudder to think the money he has throw away..and for nothing but a myth.
He is fading,so be kind, I think he is unable to go on actually ..he is sulking with me cause I reported him for trolling but he would not have been banned unless he was indeed judged to be trolling..but you know how it goes with theists..never their fault..so I get the blame...long live the eternal universe even if Jan hates the concept.
Alex
The origin of the universe/space/time? The BB at t+10-43 seconds as best as theories hold at this time and supported by particle accelerators and there experimental evidence, plus the four cosmological pillars, namely [1] Observed expansion: [2] The CMBR: [3] Abundance of lighter elements, and[4 Galactic structure and formation...and also how it fits so snugly in with GR and the particle zoo, just like a finger in a bum!
Life? Going on the fact that at one time there was no life, then there was, it seems apparent that Abiogenesis took place, although the exact methodology and process is unknown at this time. It is the only scientific answer. Then of course we can rely on the fact of Darwinism and the theory of evolution, explaining the stages we are at today.
Here we go again!!!More of the same.
Such as?