Planetary god vs universal god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 05:24 PM)childeye Wrote:  We can only comprehend in whatever limited way we are able to. Hence the term God should always be viewed with the realization of this handicap. The atheist mind just can't seem to quite defining god as superstition, which of course nobody who truly believes in God could ever actually believe in either.

We atheists always find it hilarious when Christians simultaneously say that God cannot be understood ("in whatever limited way we are able to") while saying that they understand God.

The Christian mind just can't seem to quit defining the Greek and Roman gods as superstition, despite all of the people who believed in them. Or... maybe it's just easy to spot superstition when you don't have a motive to believe it's true.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
09-09-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  
Quote:Axiomatic and irrelevant.
You might as well have said it doesn't matter who we are. But of course facts matter and so does it matter what we believe to be true.

No.

"We are not just molecules" is necessarily and automatically true. Likewise a molecule is not "just atoms". Atoms are not "just quarks". Emergent properties make this an axiomatic and meaningless statement unless further clarified - something you did not do.

(09-09-2013 07:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In other words, if the premises are set up the right way, the conclusion is inevitable. LOGIC.
Yes you are correct, assuming that when you say "the right way" you actually do acknowledge there exists a wrong way. Hence false gods.

Utter non-sequitor. I meant "right" was as in "so as to lead trivially to the desired conclusion", which is as far as you go in your reasoning. Using the word "right" does not mean I recognize any absolute basis. It's charmingly disingenuous to imply otherwise.

(09-09-2013 07:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  
Quote:I think you'll find there's some disagreement on your ridiculously loaded premises.
See what I mean? Atheism is a fundamental hypocrisy based upon a misapplication of the term God... You might as well say nothing is true and that's the Truth. There will be no disagreement with the right premise. But if wrong you will simply be disagreeing with yourself. All lies end in hypocrisy because there is a God.

If one uses your definition of God it is necessarily true. This is an utterly trivial conclusion.

Premise: Morality entails God
Premise: Morality exists
Conclusion: God exists
That is simultaneously logical, consistent, arbitrary, and utterly meaningless.

Your definition is your premise. You must have reasons for supposing it. Said reasons should probably be more substantive than "I like the idea".

If you literally cannot even begin to address why you hold a certain precept then you are incapable of rational thought.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-09-2013, 08:22 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 08:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  ...
I notice that an atheist does not define the term God the same as scripture does.
...

1000's of scriptures from 100's of cultures.

Too many definitions

One definition per believer, I find.

Not for the non-believer to even bother.

Why not give is your definition and we can go from there?

And why not do it in another thread?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
09-09-2013, 08:33 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
[img][Image: 1236922_533942550013568_559997463_n_zpsa846bce2.jpg][/img]

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
09-09-2013, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2013 09:20 PM by childeye.)
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 08:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 07:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  You might as well have said it doesn't matter who we are. But of course facts matter and so does it matter what we believe to be true.

No.

"We are not just molecules" is necessarily and automatically true. Likewise a molecule is not "just atoms". Atoms are not "just quarks". Emergent properties make this an axiomatic and meaningless statement unless further clarified - something you did not do.
Respectfully, I did use the phrase "who we are" as opposed to "what we are" . This was an attempt to make a distinction between the two.

(09-09-2013 07:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  Yes you are correct, assuming that when you say "the right way" you actually do acknowledge there exists a wrong way. Hence false gods.

Quote:Utter non-sequitor. I meant "right" was as in "so as to lead trivially to the desired conclusion", which is as far as you go in your reasoning. Using the word "right" does not mean I recognize any absolute basis. It's charmingly disingenuous to imply otherwise.
I feel I must point this out. I was actually being quite honest saying there is a right way to define God and a wrong way, and that it makes a difference in whether such a spiritual entity exists or not. I had naturally assumed you also were being honest rather than cynical as to the intent. But it makes perfect sense that someone who does not believe in any god according to their understanding of the term does not believe they err in their definition either.

(09-09-2013 07:36 PM)childeye Wrote:  See what I mean? Atheism is a fundamental hypocrisy based upon a misapplication of the term God... You might as well say nothing is true and that's the Truth. There will be no disagreement with the right premise. But if wrong you will simply be disagreeing with yourself. All lies end in hypocrisy because there is a God.

Quote:If one uses your definition of God it is necessarily true. This is an utterly trivial conclusion.
To be clear, it is not my definition of God that I believe in, but a definition given thousands of years ago, God is Love. Yes I believe in God as Love.

Quote:Premise: Morality entails God
Premise: Morality exists
Conclusion: God exists
That is simultaneously logical, consistent, arbitrary, and utterly meaningless.
I do not agree with your assessment. I would say it this way. God is Love, God is morality. The term God here refers to a Godhead determining what ultimately is morally right both objectively and subjectively. Otherwise one cannot see their hypocrisy. Hence love others as you would want to be loved is an axiom that serves the ultimate moral authority, Love. Without Love one would be amoral and without empathy or compassion. It is therefore understandable why your atheistic definition of "God is superstition" brings about an aversion for the term God.

Quote:Your definition is your premise. You must have reasons for supposing it. Said reasons should probably be more substantive than "I like the idea".
Actually, It simply makes perfect sense to me that an altruistic Love is the ultimate goodness in mankind and even the very purpose of our existence. There is no other valid challenge to my conviction and I find I am confident with courage.

Quote:If you literally cannot even begin to address why you hold a certain precept then you are incapable of rational thought.
On the contrary, to believe I should treat others a s I would want to be treated is the epitome of rational moral reasoning and the exercising of faith when acted upon. All else in fact ends up in hypocrisy. Hence I have a conscience. There is therefore a moral Truth that serves Love that I cannot deny without being dishonest. Subsequently, all reasoning that is not based upon that Truth is hypocritical and therefore wrong in my conscience. The Truth is simple, the lies are complex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 09:28 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 08:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  [quote='childeye' pid='375284' dateline='1378779279']
...
I notice that an atheist does not define the term God the same as scripture does.
...

Quote:1000's of scriptures from 100's of cultures.

Too many definitions
The truth is simple, the lies are complex. Love others as you would want to be loved is rather self-evident, even as hypocrisy is not a sound reasoning.

Quote:Not for the non-believer to even bother.
I think most everyone agrees that the Love known as empathy is our moral goodness. As I see it, the atheist is simply not prepared to equate Love as God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 09:54 PM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
The topic is planetary god vs a universal god. Stay on topic or create your own topic if you want to talk about something else.

Does a planetary god fulfill your expectations of a god ?
What do imagine a universal god doing ? Moderating physics and making sure all the natural physical laws are doing what they are suppose to do ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 12:11 AM
Re: Planetary god vs universal god
I could be coerced to think, a universal God could be more prone to having planetary systems and beings created as experiments. though id imagine he'd use more asteroid or solar inspired destruction events than simple raining floods or volcanism.

I think that God if not knowing much of a random planet isn't relevant because then he's not omniscient... And if he didn't care about the creations, he's not close to benevolent. If that's the case I wouldn't find it worthy if calling God. Its at a point to no better than SuperMan or the 10th Doctor... Latter of which is the closest thing to God I'll take

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
10-09-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 07:41 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 07:32 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Trying to recreate "the god term" thread here childeye?

Guys, this one is not worth pursuing. He is tediously circular and tends to have goalposts on wheels.

Consider yourself warned.....Drinking Beverage
Evenheathen is warning you that all things are subject to a Truth. When he says "circular" he is corroborating that all things revolve around a Truth and no one can escape the gravity of it. Indeed only the ignorant would seek to do so.

Please look up and read the definition of the word 'hypocrisy' as you do not understand it. This is not the first time you have misused it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 05:23 AM
RE: Planetary god vs universal god
(09-09-2013 08:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 08:03 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Childmind's argument boils down entirely to:

"We can just change the definition of words to suit our purposes.

Because why the fuck not?"
Yes you are partially correct. In all honesty, I notice that an atheist does not define the term God the same as scripture does. Then they use this errant definition to disclaim any belief in the God of scripture. That is why I don't believe in the same god or gods the atheists don't believe in. But I do believe in the God that is recognized as the moral goodness in mankind. No disrespect intended. Just being honest, that's all.

The precise definition hardly matters as I don't believe in any gods whatsoever.

There is no evidence of any supernatural beings.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: