Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 332 (200599)
04-20-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 1:39 PM


There's the unfalsifiable theory again
quote:
So I know EXACTLY what you people consider evidence. Soft dino tissue evidences that it survives millions of years, instead of being a falsification of MOY like it really is ...
Finally figured out that MOY means "millions of years." Yeah, isn't it amazing how whatever really does falsify the idea of MOY doesn't even get a blink of recognition from them? They just toddle right on MAKING the data fit the theory, denying the contradiction. That's the problem with a theory that can't be falsified, but is all a matter of interpretation -- we can interpret ad infinitim without ever having to touch down to reality. So now it's soft dinosaur parts. It would be hilarious if it weren't just, well, nutty.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-20-2005 12:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 1:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by dsv, posted 04-20-2005 9:17 AM Faith has replied
 Message 145 by nator, posted 04-20-2005 11:47 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 332 (200600)
04-20-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 1:39 PM


Oops, duplicate post
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-20-2005 12:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 1:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 108 of 332 (200609)
04-20-2005 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dan Carroll
04-19-2005 2:40 PM


So Dan, I think here is where it stands
1. god is love (Faith, MtW)
2. god is everything (Mtw) or maybe not (also MtW)
3. Evidence for god is everything... and the bible (Faith, Mtw)
4. You are clearly stupid if this is not clear (Faith, Mtw)
5. Naturalism is nutty (Faith)
6. You are arrogant for not accepting all the clear concise definitions brought to you by Faith and MtW.
7. Several posts of mutual backslapping by Faith and Mtw that are off topic
I think I have figured out from all of this what god [b]IS[b]
An excuse by people for being so intellectually lazy that they rather believe in fairytales (which they modify or outright make up as they go along) while using it as a basis to feel superior to those who don't. Why slog through a year of physical chemistry when the magic "goddidit" will suffice.
Either that or Dr. Strange is waaaay more powerful than I gave him credit for...maybe I should re-read The Hulk series and look for more "evidence" of god..."Hulk crush puny humans"..I mean come on Dan, could it be any clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-19-2005 2:40 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 3:55 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 111 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 6:36 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 123 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-20-2005 10:16 AM Mammuthus has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 332 (200618)
04-20-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 3:19 AM


So Dan, I think here is where it stands
1. god is love (Faith, MtW)
Nope, that one wasn't mine. MtW's though I think.
2. god is everything (Mtw) or maybe not (also MtW)
3. Evidence for god is everything... and the bible (Faith, Mtw)
Incomprehensible gobbledygook. The only place I gave a definition of God was my very first post and I certainly didn't mention evidence at that point. It's quite off-topic but nevertheless we did get onto that subject. I don't even remember how evidence got onto this thread as the topic was what God IS, nothing about evidence or anything else.
4. You are clearly stupid if this is not clear (Faith, Mtw)
I didn't call anyone here stupid. I don't think MiketW did either. At least not about the main topic, though it did come up in relation to dinosaurs. Not about God though, as you are claiming here.
5. Naturalism is nutty (Faith)
Very very true --as a Comprehensive Explanation for Absolutely Everything -- but a side issue. I was merely whiling away the time while Dan presumably figured out what he wanted to do with this thread - or not.
6. You are arrogant for not accepting all the clear concise definitions brought to you by Faith and MtW.
Nobody said any such thing. I believe you are hallucinating. I've simply been wanting to find out what Dan WANTED with this thread. I think he had something in mind for starters but somehow didn't get answers he could work with. I don't know why. It would be nice to know. I'm interested in what he wanted to get at in the first place. That would take us back to page 1 where some of us did attempt to answer his question, some four of us. Then it wandered off in other directions, such as Evidence.
You COULD have done us all a favor by being ACCURATE in breaking down the messages on this thread, in order to focus back on the main question. Instead you go off on a totally made-up put-down trip of your own.
7. Several posts of mutual backslapping by Faith and Mtw that are off topic
I think I have figured out from all of this what god IS
An excuse by people for being so intellectually lazy that they rather believe in fairytales (which they modify or outright make up as they go along) while using it as a basis to feel superior to those who don't. Why slog through a year of physical chemistry when the magic "goddidit" will suffice.
Either that or Dr. Strange is waaaay more powerful than I gave him credit for...maybe I should re-read The Hulk series and look for more "evidence" of god..."Hulk crush puny humans"..I mean come on Dan, could it be any clearer?
So much for the highly vaunted claim to factuality on this site. Overall I think you got maybe, oh, 15% of your attributions right in this post of yours. Not a very good score.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-20-2005 02:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 3:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 4:24 AM Faith has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 110 of 332 (200625)
04-20-2005 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
04-20-2005 3:55 AM


I did way better than 15%..in fact, the only one I got wrong was to attribute 1. to you and mike when it was only mike.
From your posts and mikes
Mtw
quote:
My authority is God, the bible God - who has been known of since 4000 odd bc. The bible says that the nature of the Godhead is revealed in the creation. Like it or not, from my perspective, all your logic and science will not remove evidence of God which is apparent in creation. You can define "evidence" on your own terms, but that's just a forced conclusion, from a naturalistic methodo perspective.
Fits pretty well with 2
Faith
quote:
You either have the grace to recognize the truthfulness of the people who reported those things or you don't.
Fits with 4 and 6
Faith
quote:
I have a LOT of evidence, and the evidence becomes more apparent to me daily, it's just not physical evidence.
Fits with 3
Faith
quote:
That seems to be the case with many on this site. Sad but true. I don't know if it's a waste of time. I may come to that conclusion eventually but up to a point it can be an entertaining challenge to try to explain something to people from a totally other frame of reference. You never know who's reading and may get the point in spite of this nutty naturalistic dogma here.
Faith
quote:
God may yet have mercy on these poor deceived people, but that's up to Him in His timing.
fits nicely with 4 and 6.
Mtw
quote:
Because everything is evidence of God, which the bible said
Fits with 2
It is clear that you have no idea what evidence is as your defition of evidence includes things that only you can see and experience and that could never be reproduced or experienced by anyone else. Therefore, I could just as easily claim that I have evidence that you ae wrong from the talking magic invisible fungus growing on the back of my refrigerator...and you poor soul are unable to see or hear it like I do so you are decieved...see how easy it is to use your "evidence" as a framework for believing gibberish?
quote:
I've simply been wanting to find out what Dan WANTED with this thread
I think what Dan wants is quite simple. He wants a working definition of god. It is rather stunning that you and mike so arrogantly and condescendingly look down on Dan (and anyone else) who does not subscribe to your view when you cannot even articulate what your god is in such a way that it could be distinguished from ghosts, comic book characters or free thinking magical fungi.
If you admit that you merely believe that your religious dogma and personal fantasy is real, that would be honest. However, if you claim there is evidence for your beliefs you should very easily be able to provide a definition of your god and the evidence for him/her/it/them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 3:55 AM Faith has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 111 of 332 (200647)
04-20-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 3:19 AM


Whoa. hold on there. You ignored my input in Message 89.
Besides, Dan's Clever Alias isn't asking for "evidence". He's asking for a basic "definition" of God to start his inquiry from.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 05:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 3:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 7:18 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 112 of 332 (200650)
04-20-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-20-2005 6:36 AM


That is why I did not lump you in with Faith or mike since you at least seemed to be attempting to seriously address Dan's question.
However, you started to work on a definition of god as love, then what kind of love and then stopped. Could you continue to refine what you mean to provide a working definition of god as love?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 6:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-20-2005 5:00 PM Mammuthus has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 332 (200655)
04-20-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by mike the wiz
04-19-2005 6:44 PM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
mike the wiz writes:
Your authority is science. My authority is God, the bible God - who has been known of since 4000 odd bc.
Yes, this is an accurate statement. I accept as authoritative the evidence from the natural universe. God made this universe, and I don't believe he would lie to us or try to trick us. You accept as authoritative the Bible. Man wrote the Bible, and unlike God man is fallible.
mike the wiz writes:
Try to answer this question: How would the world be different if God didn't exist, and explain why in concrete terms.
It would be different because it wouldn't exist.
You missed the point of the question. Let me pose it differently. How would the world be different if after creating the universe God went off and found other things to do and left man on his own?
Percy, I know for a fact the Hebrews are mentioned by Egyptian artefact and that they have found the lost city. It was even on discovery channel. Your side just simply ignore evidence when it suits you.
Well, I guess if it was on Discovery Channel it must be true!
I mean, do you want me to believe that you would accept any biblical happenings as true? Pa-lease.
You ask this as if you think I'm following some forumula like, "If the Bible says it, it's not true." I approach the Bible like any other historical source. I take context into account and judge each detail on its merits. You, on the other hand, *do* follow a formula: "If the Bible says it, it's true!"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mike the wiz, posted 04-19-2005 6:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 114 of 332 (200657)
04-20-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Monk
04-19-2005 11:05 PM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
Brilliant. Thanks Monk.
I seen it on discovery channel, but people here just ignore this kind of evidence.
To Mammuthus; I know EXACTLY what your idea of evidence is.
My idea of evidence is not yours but you said wrongly because infact everybody can verify that the universe exists independently from MTW. Remember I said the universe evidences God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Monk, posted 04-19-2005 11:05 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 9:03 AM mike the wiz has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 115 of 332 (200658)
04-20-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by mike the wiz
04-20-2005 8:16 AM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
quote:
Remember I said the universe evidences God?
Yes I remember and I find that about as compelling as when an intelligent design advocate claims the evidence for intelligent design is self evident. Evidence does not require a preconcieved notion of the desired outcome in your case that the universe is evidence of god. That is so broad and undefined as to be completely meaingless...I could substitute "an all powerful invisible galactic goat" for god in your sentence and it would have absolutely no impact on the ability to descriminate whether you evidence is valid or not. I percieve the universe and yet do not consider it a product of the Xian or any god. So I can claim the universe is evidence against god if I use your definition of evidence...which appears to be what mike fancies at a given moment.checkmate
Perhaps if you could actually come up with a working definition of god in the first place you would have an easier time? It is 115 post into the thread and one has yet to be put forth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 8:16 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 9:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

clpMINI
Member (Idle past 5164 days)
Posts: 116
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Joined: 03-22-2005


Message 116 of 332 (200659)
04-20-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
04-14-2005 9:39 AM


Definition of God
DCA,
In a philosophy class back in college we came up with a working concept of what god should be. Very basic, hope it helps.
Whatever it is better To Be, than Not To Be, god would be the most possible.
Such as...is it better to know things or be ignorant? Knowledgeis better I would say, so god would know the most. I did not say all knowing or omniscient, because it may not be possible to know everything (ie. the future).

It's not selling out if nobody's buying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-14-2005 9:39 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-20-2005 10:19 AM clpMINI has replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 117 of 332 (200662)
04-20-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
04-20-2005 1:05 AM


Re: There's the unfalsifiable theory again
quote:
we can interpret ad infinitim without ever having to touch down to reality.
And that's your opinion of... science?!
If that's not a spot on definition of religion and coming up with a definition of God, I don't know what is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 1:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-20-2005 11:47 AM dsv has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 118 of 332 (200665)
04-20-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 9:03 AM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
Mammuthus, absence of evidence can mean absence of God if that evidence is what is to be expected that God should do. The universe isn't expected as Since no one decides what God should do, he can only declare what he did do after he did it.
It is not my definition of "evidence" anyway. It is a statement in scripture, which pre-dates authoratitive elementatry philosophies of naturalistic dogma.
The universe IS evidence. You use it as evidence all the time pertaining to ToE.
I a fossil evidence of a transitional? Or is it evidence of itself?
The universe is evidence of God, in that I use the definition of "evidence" used since the beginning.
I'm not going to make up a definition of what God is and that is idolatry, I can only say what the bible says. Either you haven't read all of this thread or you've ignored my quote from 1 John 4.
. Evidence does not require a preconcieved notion of the desired outcome in your case that the universe is evidence of god.
It's not my desired outcome though, it's what the bible says which predates your science and logic.
Your science and logic says it must be independently verified through the scientific method AKA elemantary philosophies of reaching conclusions about truth WITHOUT GOD. B U T it is irrelevant. How could the universe being evidence of God be a desired outcome, when it is written that the universe is evidence of God BEFORE logic and science?
It means that you think I'm trying to fit evidence into your science. I AM NOT. I APPEAL NOT to your logic and science, nor is it my authority, because my authority is he who created the universe, as it has been known from the beginning, and no one is without excuse. (Romans).
So it's all well and dandy that you say that evidence is this that and the other according to science and logic.
My sister who is 14 says to me "I know my father better than you, yet you are a man", and I laugh, can the roof of the house say "I know the ground better than the base knows it"? Science is TOO LATE, the bible is the truth of the ages, that tells us the truth millenia before naturalistic input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 9:03 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dsv, posted 04-20-2005 9:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 121 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 10:04 AM mike the wiz has replied

dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 119 of 332 (200669)
04-20-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by mike the wiz
04-20-2005 9:25 AM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
Let's grant this concept of God (for the moment). Now you might still think that to answer whether God exists, we should get clearer on what we mean by exists. First, let's note the difference between existing in reality and existing "in the understanding" or "in the mind."
Obviously, the issue before us is not whether God exists in the mind...whether some people have an idea of God. Many people do (or seem to). The question is whether the concept they have--the idea that they associate with the term "God"--is real in the world external to the mind.
The OP is looking for a definition of God in the external world. "God is love" doesn't help us because love only exists in the mind. We can't observe "love energy" flying through the air attracting people.
quote:
Science is TOO LATE, the bible is the truth of the ages, that tells us the truth millenia before naturalistic input.
That doesn't really make any sense (to me, anyway). Are you saying that in your world the first theory is right? Does that also make the Earth flat and the Sun revolving around us? Not only biblical but also hundreds of scientific theories are hypothesized and proven wrong by new more accurate science. To say that because the bible was written before modern science started exploring these questions and therefore it is right... does that make sense to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 9:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 332 (200670)
04-20-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-19-2005 6:35 PM


Re: Dans clever creation
When I speak of love, I'm speaking of a divine love that is willing to sacrifice itself in order that others may live.
Which brings us back to the question... this love is what people are talking about when they say God exists? Seems a bit... abstract? Might there be something more specific and concrete we can get at?
But the point is: If one continues to request a simple definition of God without reference to people, then others may be confused when the one who requests these simple definitions always by default takes their defintion and proceeds to compare it to actual or fictional people.Acts 17:22-24 NIV writes:
For what it's worth, I have no problem with saying "Hey, God is unknowable. Deal with it."
Just as long as we all write that one down for the next time someone starts a thread proclaiming how obvious it is that God's right there in front of us. (As folks have done on this thread.)
I could certainly see that if you are looking for a solidly material reason for his death.
More something other than what I already know... that this man died. Similarly, when people say "God is the creator of the universe!", I can only really respond with, "Um... okay, what's God?" If they repeat "the creator of the universe!", then they're just telling me that the creator of the universe is the creator of the universe. And... well, I already know that the universe is here.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure.
Well...I suppose when one looks on the most rational and logical physical level, when one talks about a spirit they are usually refering to a mood or inspiration or even mentality that one operate in.
Based on a reply I gave above, by Judeo-Christian definition, God is the spiritual substrate...
This is interesting metaphor, but is it wholly different from Faith's earlier Shadow King description?
If I were lost in a city and stopped to ask someone for directions, they might reply, "You need to go that way." or "You need to go North."
I gotta tell ya... maybe it's just me, but my reaction would be to blink, say "yeah, thanks" and go ask someone who could give better directions.
I don't mean to piss you off, MD, because you really have been the only one on this thread who seems to be willing to elaborate and get a definition out there. So if I have, I apologize. You haven't been here long, so this is as good a time as any to find out that I'm a smarmy ass sometimes. Doesn't mean I don't have a serious point; it's just kinda how I do things. Offense is rarely meant.
All that being said, I hope you don't actually cease involvement with the thread. You're bringing a touch of class to things.
This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-20-2005 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-19-2005 6:35 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024