God is love? Not in this Universe.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 02:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great. Any why does this matter
?
Because whenever speaking about God, correctly interpreting the term is important.

Quote:Any quoting of him on any subject other than Physics is the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy.
At least he understood God as meant to be perceived as the energy of creation and time itself.
Quote:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam
85 % of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists.
I would bet 85% of scientists conflate God with religion. So according to your contradictory reasoning, you are most likely 85% hypocritically lost in the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
Re: childeye...

[Image: hB1E505B9]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
15-07-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 02:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  At least he understood God as meant to be perceived as the energy of creation and time itself.

Which is to say, not a personal God; which is to say, not a personified God; which is to say, not an interventionist God; which is to say, not a God as depicted by any established religion; which is to say, not a God responsible for or responsive to human beings.

It's all very well and good if you wish to believe in such a thing.

It simply has no bearing whatsoever on one's life.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2013 03:13 PM by childeye.)
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes, a now outdated model for the creation of the universe and nothing more.
Again you make my point. It's as I have said, everything an atheist says is hypocritical thinking. So it is of course easy to claim you don't believe in God when you change the term "God" to mean superstition. Every Christian is now an Atheist by such reasoning.

Quote:You do not claim to follow the watchmaker god (aka totally non-interventionist) so by agreeing with Einstein you also are stating that you previously claimed statements were in error and you have in fact seen Christianity as a fraud since Yahweh is not Spinoza's god.
Not exactly true. Christ is an intervention in the course of humanity in my view, whose atonement for mankind was necessary and yet was foreseen and planned for by God. I didn't agree with Einstein nor disagree, nor does it matter to my point. My point was to show that he didn't change the meaning of the word God to mean something other than what it is, and then on the new falsified interpretation condemn those who believe in God as mindless minions who do not have reason or logic nor science. Nor do I agree that Yahweh is not Spinoza"s God as you assert.

I do not think it necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the flesh: but with regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested itself in all things and especially in the human mind, and above all in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise. For without this no one can come to a state of blessedness, inasmuch as it alone teaches, what is true or false, good or evil. And, inasmuch as this wisdom was made especially manifest through Jesus Christ, as I have said, His disciples preached it, in so far as it was revealed to them through Him, and thus showed that they could rejoice in that spirit of Christ more than the rest of mankind. The doctrines added by certain churches, such as that God took upon Himself human nature, I have expressly said that I do not understand; in fact, to speak the truth, they seem to me no less absurd than would a statement, that a circle had taken upon itself the nature of a square. Letter 21 (73) to Henry Oldenburg , November (1675)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 03:17 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 02:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  At least he understood God as meant to be perceived as the energy of creation and time itself.

Which is to say, not a personal God; which is to say, not a personified God; which is to say, not an interventionist God; which is to say, not a God as depicted by any established religion; which is to say, not a God responsible for or responsive to human beings.

It's all very well and good if you wish to believe in such a thing.

It simply has no bearing whatsoever on one's life.
Respectfully, for all I know, all that is meant by someone saying he doesn't believe in a personal God is yet speculative. I am a determinist also in the sense of cause and effect. Hence I claim God is Love and the power of goodness in mankind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes, a now outdated model for the creation of the universe and nothing more.


Again you make my point.

Translation...

Na na-na na... god... na na-na na... love... na na-na na... I win. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 02:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes, a now outdated model for the creation of the universe and nothing more.
Again you make my point. It's as I have said, everything an atheist says is hypocritical thinking. So it is of course easy to claim you don't believe in God when you change the term "God" to mean superstition. Every Christian is now an Atheist by such reasoning.

And if you define "God" to mean the totality of existence, then anyone who accepts an external reality is by definition a theist.

One cannot unilaterally redefine terms. That's not how discussion works. A non-regulated language such as English nonetheless has the implicit assumption that, unless otherwise specified, words are being used to mean their common, most conventional definitions.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  Not exactly true. Christ is an intervention in the course of humanity in my view, whose atonement for mankind was necessary and yet was foreseen and planned for by God.

This has nothing to do with the existence of a prime mover. This is pure supernatural myth - it's irrelevant and untrue nonsense. What about the prophet Mohammed? What about Joseph Smith? What about Bahá'u'lláh?

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  I didn't agree with Einstein nor disagree...

The above sentence indicates that you completely utterly.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  My point was to show that he didn't change the meaning of the word God...

Actually he did, since he was constantly defining what he meant by the term in order to prevent his being misunderstood. That it is superficially similar to your definition is not germane.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  ... to mean something other than what it is...

Your definition is not a conventional one. Nor is it one espoused by believers in any mainstream religion. I refuse to believe that you don't understand this. So I'm left wondering why you are so stubborn about it.

(15-07-2013 03:17 PM)childeye Wrote:  Respectfully, for all I know, all that is meant by someone saying he doesn't believe in a personal God is yet speculative.

Einstein, for what he's worth (and you brought him up), believed that the concept of a personal God was ridiculous myth. I happen to agree.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  Hence I claim God is Love and the power of goodness in mankind.

This, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible or any other supposed scripture. A deistic God, or indeed a pantheistic one, gives forth no tenets and requires no worship. That's why it's irrelevant.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 06:48 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 04:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And if you define "God" to mean the totality of existence, then anyone who accepts an external reality is by definition a theist.

One cannot unilaterally redefine terms. That's not how discussion works. A non-regulated language such as English nonetheless has the implicit assumption that, unless otherwise specified, words are being used to mean their common, most conventional definitions.
I agree, which is why God must be respected in the precedent of it's usage that has been common in literature throughout history. It represents in imagery an absolute that carries the description of an ultimate truth.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  Not exactly true. Christ is an intervention in the course of humanity in my view, whose atonement for mankind was necessary and yet was foreseen and planned for by God.

Quote:This has nothing to do with the existence of a prime mover. This is pure supernatural myth - it's irrelevant and untrue nonsense. What about the prophet Mohammed? What about Joseph Smith? What about Bahá'u'lláh?
None of these you mention claimed to be the Christ. The term Christ is directly linked to the existence of a Prime mover. There can be no son of God without God.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  My point was to show that he didn't change the meaning of the word God...
Quote:Actually he did, since he was constantly defining what he meant by the term in order to prevent his being misunderstood. That it is superficially similar to your definition is not germane.
How can it not be Germane when we are talking about the existence of God?

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  ... to mean something other than what it is...

Quote:Your definition is not a conventional one. Nor is it one espoused by believers in any mainstream religion. I refuse to believe that you don't understand this. So I'm left wondering why you are so stubborn about it.
I think Love and Creator of the universe are widely understood as God.

(15-07-2013 03:17 PM)childeye Wrote:  Respectfully, for all I know, all that is meant by someone saying he doesn't believe in a personal God is yet speculative.

Quote:Einstein, for what he's worth (and you brought him up), believed that the concept of a personal God was ridiculous myth. I happen to agree.
If that means no man invents his own personal God, I agree.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  Hence I claim God is Love and the power of goodness in mankind.

Quote:This, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible or any other supposed scripture. A deistic God, or indeed a pantheistic one, gives forth no tenets and requires no worship. That's why it's irrelevant.
I partially agree. In my understanding of spiritual things, God is in the creation and yet outside the creation. He draws worship, He doesn't require it. And as Spirit, He fulfills what we would call certain principles we call tenets.
If you want to leave the bible out of it, that's fine with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 08:44 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 02:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  Because whenever speaking about God, correctly interpreting the term is important.

That is the most hilarious thing I've heard all day. Coming from someone who capriciously redefines terms to suit himself, and insists everyone else accept his idiosyncratic nonsense.

You are neither really a Christian, nor a theist.
You're just a confused wandering refugee in need of a good dictionary.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-07-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: God is love? Not in this Universe.
(15-07-2013 06:48 PM)childeye Wrote:  None of these you mention claimed to be the Christ.

They certainly claimed to be inspired by the divine. Who's to say they weren't? You?

(15-07-2013 06:48 PM)childeye Wrote:  The term Christ is directly linked to the existence of a Prime mover. There can be no son of God without God.

There is no link whatsoever. "B requires A" is a completely different statement from "A implies B". We have been discussing A.

(15-07-2013 03:08 PM)childeye Wrote:  I partially agree. In my understanding of spiritual things, God is in the creation and yet outside the creation. He draws worship, He doesn't require it. And as Spirit, He fulfills what we would call certain principles we call tenets.
If you want to leave the bible out of it, that's fine with me.

You keep mentioning Christ as if that were somehow relevant to cosmogeny (aka, the only realm in which it is even remotely plausible to invoke the supernatural). It is not.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: