• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why would a perfect god create?

You mean the book that is full of fallacies and failed prophecies?

Yeah that would be that perfect book that gives everyone all they need to know about, well, anything they'd care to know about; that book that gives us the perfect rules to live our lives by even though it was written thousands of years ago; that completely unambiguous book that anyone can pick up at any time and find the clear and concise answers to any questions we would ever want answered...

... if only we interpret it properly or have someone else interpret it properly for us.

I mean, if we interpret the Bible in one way, the horrific torture and slaughter of innocent women accused of witchery is perfectly acceptable.

Slightly off topic I know but to me it's really why the thread title and OP are meaningless.
 
There seems to be a bit of a chasm between operationalists and essentialists.

Very broadly speaking, the essentialists are of a Platonic-Aristotleic tradition, and are mostly concerned with the true nature, or essence of things. A sort of metaphysical least common denominator. Here, rigorous and measurable defiinitions are not necessary.

A classic essentialist position is that God is the being which must exist, for his essence and his existence are one and the same. The essence is also used to explain transsubstantiation and trinitarianism.

Operationalists, on the other hand, with their roots in enlightenment philosophy, are concerned with establishing a valid, repeatable definition that can be measured, tested, and falsified. Not so much with whether that is the "true nature" of whatever term it is you are defining, because our ideas of true nature are not always compatible with science.

So if I describe God as a conscious entity that intervenes in peoples' life because of prayer (for instance) then that can be falsified by establishing experimental conditions for praying and testing it.
 
God=Imaginary being. Easy-peasy.

Actually, no, I was expecting for you to try that, that is why I warned you to consider pantheism. In pantheism, God means Universe... ¿are you saying that the universe is an imaginary being? :boggled:

(Not to mention that this would mean other imaginary beings such as unicorns or werewolves would be gods by your definition...)

Religions are so diverse in their crazy idea that it would be impossible to provide an all-encompassing definition. Hinduism has a whole pantheon of gods.

My point exactly, happy to see you finally agree.

You can't provide a definition either, for the same reason.

I did not say I could (I am an ignostic)... you on the other hand:

I know what the word god means. Speak for yourself please.

Here I am waiting for you to do what you think it is impossible... ¿Or you are planning on saying that you know what the word god means while at the same time being unable to define it? (that sounds dangerously like the nonsense a theist would say...)
 
Last edited:
Actually, no, I was expecting for you to try that, that is why I warned you to consider pantheism. In pantheism, God means Universe... ¿are you saying that the universe is an imaginary being? :boggled:
(Not to mention that this would mean other imaginary beings such as unicorns or werewolves would be gods by your definition...)



My point exactly, happy to see you finally agree.



I did not say I could (I am an ignostic)... you on the other hand:



Here I am waiting for you to do what you think it is impossible... ¿Or you are planning on saying that you know what the word god means while at the same time being unable to define it? (that sounds dangerously like the nonsense a theist would say...)

Why should anyone care what pantheism says?


Pantheism says god = universe, atheist says there is no god therefore there is only the universe.
 
Actually, no, I was expecting for you to try that, that is why I warned you to consider pantheism. In pantheism, God means Universe... ¿are you saying that the universe is an imaginary being? :boggled:

:

No. The universe is not an imaginary being but it does contain life forms who invent imaginary beings.
 
No. The universe is not an imaginary being but it does contain life forms who invent imaginary beings.

That might be so, but the challenge was not to define "theistic human", it was to define god.

Should I assume (due to your ignoring of your own words) that you have been defeated and that you are unable to explain what "god" means?

Or do you care to try again? :rolleyes:
 
Why should anyone care what pantheism says?


Pantheism says god = universe, atheist says there is no god therefore there is only the universe.

Care to read the discussion before writing? :p.

Here is the short version: I say the term "god" is nonsense, that leads to predicates with Mu (Null) truth value, I base that on the word "God" being nonsense.

dafydd writes that I should only talk for myself because he knows what the word "god" means.

So, I challenge him to explain it to me in a free of contradictions way, that encompasses all religions... and he fails, because (among other things, like being too general) his definition is not compatible with at least one religion: pantheism.

So, to address you question: "Why should anyone care what pantheism says?" simple, because it reminds us that humans use the term "god" in a way that strips it from any meaning, rendering any discussion with the word "god" in it nonsense.

Care to try and give me contradiction free definition of god?

Or are you going to say to me that you know what the word god means while at the same time being unable to define it? (be careful, this kind of "reasoning" leads the way in to theism...)
 
Last edited:
Care to read the discussion before writing? :p.

Here is the short version: I say the term "god" is nonsense, that leads to predicates with Mu (Null) truth value, I base that on the word "God" being nonsense.

dafydd writes that I should only talk for myself because he knows what the word "god" means.

So, I challenge him to explain it to me in a free of contradictions way, that encompasses all religions... and he fails, because (among other things, like being too general) his definition is not compatible with at least one religion: pantheism.

So, to address you question: "Why should anyone care what pantheism says?" simple, because it reminds us that humans use the term "god" in a way that strips it from any meaning, rendering any discussion with the word "god" in it nonsense.

Care to try and give me contradiction free definition of god?

Or are you going to say to me that you know what the word god means while at the same time being unable to define it? (be careful, this kind of "reasoning" leads the way in to theism...)

God = I.

It's a word that allows one's ego to inflate to equal the universe or in your case to feel superior to both the atheist and the theist.
 
So you don't get your beliefs from the bible, do you just make it up as you go along or based on what you wish were true?

Sorry for delayed response, been hectic with family.

I get a lot of my beliefs from the Bible. It's certainly been a central source of inspiration and encouragement for me in my life. So has my collection of chemistry textbooks, which I still read everyday, 10 years after graduating with a Ph.D. in the subject. Truth, inspiration, and beliefs can be found in a great deal of texts. I don't limit myself to the Bible.

Do I base my beliefs on what I wish were true? Well, not really. Being a nice person isn't easy, sometimes. It'd be a lot easier if I felt the "proper" life was one which was laid-back, full of questionable behaviors, and demanded nothing from me, because that would save me a great deal of time and effort. However, I'm led to believe otherwise by the feelings that I have inside me, which - coincidentally or not - coincide (not 100%, or even 70%, but partially) with suggestions from the Bible on how to live my life.

Do I make it up as I go along? Again, no; I don't invent a new set of rules to match every circumstance. When I face a difficult choice and I don't know how to act, I ask God (the entity I hold to be God - a surge of emotion and directives from within) to guide me, and to instruct me.

As a scientist I realize I'm breaking with several fundamental rules about judging and gauging phenomena that I experience. I wrestled with it for years, but I eventually gave into the fact that the two can coincide. I can explain a lot about the world I see and that I measure; I can describe how molecules are formed, and how atomic building blocks behave. What the scientist in me often can't explain - rushes of emotion driving me to an action that is not in my own best interest, but will benefit others; an almost overpowering sense of awe and majesty that I feel when I praise God - I choose not to explain these with science.

One day we might determine that all of these internal feelings are nothing more than chemical imbalances of various neurotransmitters / undiagnosed mental disorders / xyz. For now - for myself - I choose to believe in God, living in my life, having entrusted him to lead me to make correct decisions.

The thread is way off track at this point, and I'm not entirely sure why focus has shifted to me, other than I shared some personal feelings on the subject that others may not like. I'm not going to "pray for you" or hold you in contempt or quote Scripture. I know from my own feelings and from the reactions of friends and family that I'm living an honorable life, a good life, and I choose to attribute those positive results - erroneously or not -to the personal relationship I've forged with God.

Whatever you claim it to be - vestiges of humanity, conscience, etc - that's fine with me, you can call it what you want. I'd encourage everyone to live a productive, admirable life, positively impacting those around them. I'd also encourage everyone to acquire at least a rudimentary knowledge of science, as I feel that would also directly and positively impact their life.

If anyone would like to debate this (though I don't see much to argue about - it's my life, and I'm not pushing my beliefs onto others) - feel free to PM me. In the meantime, again, to the OP: I don't think we can ever know why a perfect God would or would not do something, because he's beyond us. He's beyond me. I filter down (however inaccurately) what I feel he's leading me to do, just as (it's my belief) millions of Christians have done before me. Sometimes we get it right, a lot of time we don't. Humans aren't perfect. God is.
 
So, I challenge him to explain it to me in a free of contradictions way, that encompasses all religions... and he fails, because (among other things, like being too general) his definition is not compatible with at least one religion: pantheism.

Challenge? I didn't know that this was a competition. Most believers only believe in one religion, so pantheism is a sidetrack. I wouldn't call pantheism a religion, I don't know of any pantheist churches. You can define the word god any way you care to, I have my own definition and I'm sticking to it, an imaginary being. Are you saying that there are real gods for pantheists to believe in?
 
Last edited:
...
If anyone would like to debate this (though I don't see much to argue about - it's my life, and I'm not pushing my beliefs onto others) - feel free to PM me. In the meantime, again, to the OP: I don't think we can ever know why a perfect God would or would not do something, because he's beyond us. He's beyond me. I filter down (however inaccurately) what I feel he's leading me to do, just as (it's my belief) millions of Christians have done before me. Sometimes we get it right, a lot of time we don't. Humans aren't perfect. God is.
.
Use your imagination. That's where god comes from.
Nothing more than a brain fart, inflated into horror by folks "knowing" they are his instruments of death and destruction here... since the old guy doesn't seem too active in reality.
 
Last edited:
Challenge? I didn't know that this was a competition.

It isn't. But you said you knew what a "god" was, so I challeged you to give a complete and coherent definition... and you failed. :p

Most believers only believe in one religion, so pantheism is a sidetrack

Oh... so you can tell the difference (even when unable to define "god" in a coherent way...)

I wouldn't call pantheism a religion, I don't know of any pantheist churches.

Here you have one: http://www.pantheist.net/society/

You can define the word god any way you care to, I have my own definition and I'm sticking to it, an imaginary being.

Well, then, how do you distinguish between gods, leprechauns, werewolves & unicorns? (they are all imaginary beings... are you saying they are all gods?)

Are you saying that there are real gods for pantheists to believe in?

First of all: I am saying "god" is a nonsense meaningless word, that is the position I am defending (pantheism is as nonsensical as any other theism, the only nonsensical way is ignosticism). :rolleyes:

Now, on your question: A pantheist believes that god = universe. ¿Do you belive there is a universe? (pantheist do) You don't? :eek:
 
Last edited:
It isn't. But you said you knew what a "god" was, so I challeged you to give a complete and coherent definition... and you failed. :p



Oh... so you can tell the difference (even when unable to define "god" in a coherent way...)



Here you have one: http://www.pantheist.net/society/



Well, then, how do you distinguish between gods, leprechauns, werewolves & unicorns? (they are all imaginary beings... are you saying they are all gods?)



First of all: I am saying "god" is a nonsense meaningless word, that is the position I am defending (pantheism is as nonsensical as any other theism, the only nonsensical way is ignosticism). :rolleyes:

Now, on your question: A pantheist believes that god = universe. ¿Do you belive there is a universe? (pantheist do) You don't? :eek:

Wow. So much fail.
 
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Challenge? I didn't know that this was a competition.


It isn't. But you said you knew what a "god" was, so I challeged you to give a complete and coherent definition... and you failed. :p



Oh... so you can tell the difference (even when unable to define "god" in a coherent way...)



Here you have one: http://www.pantheist.net/society/



Well, then, how do you distinguish between gods, leprechauns, werewolves & unicorns? (they are all imaginary beings... are you saying they are all gods?)



First of all: I am saying "god" is a nonsense meaningless word, that is the position I am defending (pantheism is as nonsensical as any other theism, the only nonsensical way is ignosticism). :rolleyes:

Now, on your question: A pantheist believes that god = universe. ¿Do you belive there is a universe? (pantheist do) You don't? :eek:

It isn't a challenge yet you challenged him?

You say the word 'god' is meaningless then smugly ask others to define it.

Pantheism is nonsense but you use it to score some sort of point.


You make about as much sense as any other preacher.
 

Back
Top Bottom