What's a God?
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
I'm contributing to the thread. You're spouting nonsense based on nothing. So if anyone is tired of anyone here, it's US who are tired of YOU.
Why stop there? Why couldn't the god be a really big bottle of soda, and we are but the condensation running down its neck? I mean, you can say whatever you like about it, but we have documentation here, homie, and all of it speaks of supernatural beings, not technological ones.
Also, you're assuming that gods are capable of existing. We do not know that this is anything more than an invention of man.
Ah....good argument, I'm glad you can contribute to the discussion instead of just poking fun at those expressing their views. Good one.
but but but buttttt i got a big buttttt
you're right!
i should show a little more compassion buttttttttttttt my butttttttttttttt gets in the way..........
imagine that
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That wasn't actually directed at you. It was to make you see a point, which is that if your definition is true every human has countless other human gods.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, I'm suggesting man created the gods.
Speak for yourself and not for others. And I'm contributing too. I'm simply superior to you for various reasons.
This idea has no basis; what basis do you have for this idea?
As you noticed I did not say anything about this god except that this god is both
a) intelligent
b) has the ability to alter things
Which we base on our own human ability to do these things; this is where the entire idea of god comes from
Is superior intelligence capable of existing?
i guess the same way, 'mankind created all words'.................?
so by just writing "gonapsyphilherpalaids" (desease i may have).... i created?
am i a god now too?
(where's that chainsaw)
absolutely!
(knowledge combined with experience = understanding)
lot's of god's to the dog
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
This is barely intelligible and, in fact, nonsensical.
You mean to say that you don't see that my post means the exact same thing as shichimenshyo's
Norsefire,
No, this is imaginative speculation. Logic is based on deduction and truths. I.e. it is necessary to show evidence for a god to enable valid premises that can form a logical argument. There is no evidence for gods so no appropriate premises can be formed. The logic for a god stops at that point.
There is no case where human intelligence has caused the creation of anything complex outside of an evolutionary process. Human intelligence is simply a component of evolutionary activity. EVERYTHING that you can name that has been perceived to have been created by human intelligence was the result of an adaptation of something simpler. I.e. complexity ALWAYS results from something simpler. We see this in biology and everything round us. This is overwhelming evidence that there is NO need for a creator god.
A fundamentally flawed argument. We have zero precedence that intelligence can create anything outside of an evolutionary process. We have zero reason to suspect that a beginning, if there was one, needed an intelligence to be present.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, I'm sorry you see it that way. But your reasoning in those threads is a bit inane. And your claim that the thread was meant to point out that humans are illogical makes no sense either, everyone knows that humans are illogical.
man created all god's right?
well then man can also call em as he see's em!
some are honest about what they comprehend some are not
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying man didn't created the gods ?
my answer was; 'just as mankind created all words?"
i guess i should have just said, "Yes, man created the renditions of 'every god'."
did that help?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps it was what followed..?
only one
a mispelled word!
the energy that enables an object (mass) life, will consume to continue
Life: abuses entropy
proof: the evolution of living species! (if the 2nd was true, then evolution could not occur as the life of the 'tree' of any species, that is still alive; has NEVER equilibriated)
the second law was incorporated into the physics of planck (h.. is plancks constant) a macro anology of hot going to cold, imposing a direction to equilibriate by law)
that is what has ruined physics through-out the sciences and why biological renditions of living structures (the exchange of energy between mass) cannot be defined without removing the entropy or 's' as being of a single direction.
I do not want to read your stupidity about the 2Lot unless you open a thread and try and prove me wrong (i challenge you and/or/plus/including the god of this whole website to that one)
of simple systems?
all that math already exists
the transition of energy to mass in time; the ToE............. NO
does life procreate? If yes, then that life just passed up its generation to equilibriate and continue based on what it does by instinct.
or perfecty put; do you randomly eat shit when you consume food or are you purposed when you eat by choice?
if you were randomly eating or following the law of 2Lot you could not choose as the law makes it law, that you will go cold, by law, randomly, with all the uncertainties of the uncertainty principles of physics (heisenberg)
i do all day long
just look above, examples, logic and the place to find the law incorporated into physics (planck)
along with any challenge on any thread you could ever post up
why not just come after me with both barrels versus making a fool of yourself on threads you really do not comprehend anyway
ie.... 'man' is a 3 letter word!
A dear, you misspell most of your words, or subscribe to the theory that coherency isn't a requirement in a post.
No it doesn't.
Wrong.
You continue to ascribe an incorrect meaning to the law. It applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not.
You are operating under a false assumption and fail to correct yourself.
Life is NOT purposed.
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with choice.
Keep making false assumptions, it's amusing.
Wow, you got one right!