How do you Define GOD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

what does God mean to you?
how would you explain what God is?

---

An omnipotent, omnipresent, inescapable, supernatural being who can cut through space time, existed before the spatio-temporal realm(universe) and is unstoppable.


What he isn't
-The universe
-A warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach
-Your perception
-Subjective
-You

Any further explanation, just let me know...

you seem so sure of all of this - have you not had many conversations about these things ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

you seem so sure of all of this - have you not had many conversations about these things ?

---

Plenty... Mostly with rationalistic philosophical types.
Many of whom believe in corn ball generalizations and vague metaphysical statements they have no data to actually back.

Of course, the question was how do you define God?
Not "What is God?"
My definition of God is based around the God I've always been exposed to.
If however someone who worships say... Xenu or some Shinto deity was to talk about God, I imagine their definition would be different.

In the end, it's a question of who is correct.
Objective truth is non-negotiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Of course, the question was how do you define God?
Not "What is God?"

---

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

Peace

---

Definitions hinge on socially accepted and common understandings, I guess I could have worded that better?

What is God objectively and how you define God individually may very, that's my point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

if you are atheist, what do you think does not exist? because you have to have an idea that you can refute or lack evidence of .

---

This implies atheism makes a positive claim about our reality, which it does not. Any atheist worth his salt will not say "there is no god" but "there is no shred of evidence that there exists what you (theists) claim to be god in any sense of the word". Thus, the burden of proof lies squarely on the theist making the claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SHALLAH JUSTICE

A building for example has a network of cables all feeding electricity to and from different parts of the building, they have computer networks that send data back and forth, they are structuarly engineered to fight and withstand the elements, they are a creation

The same as us, we have cables (nerves) that carry electrical signals, we have neurons that carry data,we have an immune system to combat illness, we are engineered just like the empire state was.

The golden gate bridge did not appear out of nowhere, it was painstakingly engineered and designed, just like we are thats my "arguement" nothing more nothing less.

---

The heart of this exchange y'all are having is the idea of a first cause. Everything exists because something caused it. It goes all the way back to the big bang, which so far, has no cause to my knowledge. This fact leads creationists to say god did it, which in turns begs the question: what caused god? leading into an illogical and highly improbable infinite regression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

what does God mean to you?
how would you explain what God is?.

---

Well to me a god or god himself is a superior being. A being that is greater then all beings in the world. Most gods have the same beliefs. Beliefs of peace, equality, justice and to do onto others as you want done to you...
So basically thats what i think a god or god is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

This implies atheism makes a positive claim about our reality, which it does not. Any atheist worth his salt will not say "there is no god" but "there is no shred of evidence that there exists what you (theists) claim to be god in any sense of the word". Thus, the burden of proof lies squarely on the theist making the claims.

---

this is a cowardly stance to take. any PERSON worth his salt, can and will be able to explain and defend what he believes to be true.

i don't know who decided that this burden of proof argument was valid but i'd be willing to bet that they had a penis but peed sitting down.



anyway...

if you want a shred of evidence that God exists, look in the mirror.
then slap whoever told you he wasn't real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

this is a cowardly stance to take. any PERSON worth his salt, can and will be able to explain and defend what he believes to be true.

i don't know who decided that this burden of proof argument was valid but i'd be willing to bet that they had a penis but peed sitting down.



anyway...

if you want a shred of evidence that God exists, look in the mirror.
then slap whoever told you he wasn't real.

---

I'll disregard your insinuations and have you take a look through this thread, as you can see when one starts talking about god you must start making shit up off the top of your head. I'll say it again, there isn't any single piece of evidence, nor has there ever been, that anything stated in here exists.

how about: isotropic vector matrix/void/vacuum/atem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

there isn't any single piece of evidence, nor has there ever been, that anything stated in here exists.

---

but yet you have FAITH that everything that is in the known universe existed in a space smaller than an atom? (big bang)


smh

really, in 2010 athesism is just as silly and outdated as a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

we already know that modern science cannot detect 95% of what we call reality.

why the hell would anyone base his perception of what reality on what science can prove is if they can only "prove" 5% of it?




science is on that multidimensional, entangled, unseen forces, quantum flip, new age shit. some cats are still stuck in the 19th century lookin for god with a telescope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

but yet you have FAITH that everything that is in the known universe existed in a space smaller than an atom? (big bang)


smh

---

It has nothing to do with faith at all. All of the EVIDENCE points to this, yes.

Quote:

---

we already know that modern science cannot detect 95% of what we call reality.

why the hell would anyone base his perception of what reality on what science can prove is if they can only "prove" 5% of it?

---

That's 5% more than religion can "prove".

Quote:

---

science is on that multidimensional, entangled, unseen forces, quantum flip, new age shit. some cats are still stuck in the 19th century lookin for god with a telescope.

---

Science doesn't seek to find a god, just an understanding of our reality through observation and measurement, if debunking religious dogma is a by-product of such, too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

really, in 2010 athesism is just as silly and outdated as a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

---

Yet remains the fastest growing minority group in the U.S.

People often say god is allpowerfull but that's impossible since he gave us free will right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

Yet remains the fastest growing minority group in the U.S.

---

no.
latinos are.



you do have faith in the singularity. cause there is not a single shred of proof. NONE. ZERO.

science does try and is trying to find God. and in fact a large percentage of scientist believe in God.

i'm beginning to think that you don't even follow current science and are basing your perspective on old paradigms. show me why i'm mistaken.

Atheism is not obsolete, neither is religion.
The one thing that needs to fucking die is new age spiritualism and a faceless God who has no definite features.
It's vomit inducing to listen to people who sound like weeded out hippies talking about purpose and love and togetherness based on the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they do so.

Then again, I'm an asshole, so that has to be taken into consideration also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ikke

People often say god is allpowerfull but that's impossible since he gave us free will right...

---

i don't see how those two things are in opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Atheism is not obsolete, neither is religion.
The one thing that needs to fucking die is new age spiritualism and a faceless God who has no definite features.
It's vomit inducing to listen to people who sound like weeded out hippies talking about purpose and love and togetherness based on the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they do so.

Then again, I'm an asshole, so that has to be taken into consideration also.

---

what you call new age is older than both religion and atheism.

asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

what you call new age is older than both religion and atheism.

asshole.

---

I call? Everyone calls! Although some might call it Oprah...
Crazy whore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

i don't see how those two things are in opposition.

---

If I have freewill he can't have complete power over me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

no.
latinos are.

---

Those identifying themselves as atheists doubled from 7% in 1990 to more than 15% in 2009, making atheists officially the fastest growing minority in the US.

Quote:

---

you do have faith in the singularity. cause there is not a single shred of proof. NONE. ZERO.

---

The universe had a beginning, Hubble's Law, Penzia's and Wilson's CMB which pervades the universe, and the abundance of helium and hydrogen are but some of the evidence which supports the big bang.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence. You're showing a lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.

Quote:

---

science does try and is trying to find God. and in fact a large percentage of scientist believe in God.

---

This holds no significance whatsoever. Newton had several rather insane beliefs yet it does not mean gravity doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

i'm beginning to think that you don't even follow current science and are basing your perspective on old paradigms. show me why i'm mistaken.

---

I'm beginning to think you're trolling. No one could be this irredeemably stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

i don't see how those two things are in opposition.

---

Free will is god given, therefore I have free will not by my own choice to have free will, but by god's edict that I MUST have free will. Can I choose NOT to have free will?

The term itself implies a path or road of goodness that should be followed, yet you have the choice to diverge, The problem arises when religions state any divergence from this path results in hellfire, reducing free will to a form of celestial rebellion which is in turn, punished. Doesn't sound like free will at all if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ikke

If I have freewill he can't have complete power over me.

---

You may have free will but your choices are ultimately limited to the possibilities he's allotted for you.
So... yes, he can.


Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"

It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

Those identifying themselves as atheists doubled from 7% in 1990 to more than 15% in 2009, making atheists officially the fastest growing minority in the US.

The universe had a beginning, Hubble's Law, Penzia's and Wilson's CMB which pervades the universe, and the abundance of helium and hydrogen are but some of the evidence which supports the big bang.

the singularity. not big bang. the IDEA that everything was once one.
zero evidence.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence. You're showing a lack of understanding of what you're arguing against.

see above

This holds no significance whatsoever. Newton had several rather insane beliefs yet it does not mean gravity doesn't exist.

gravity is not completely understood. so this may or may not be true.

I'm beginning to think you're trolling. No one could be this irredeemably stupid.
you are beginning to sound like a fundamentalist who gets mad when his faith is challenged.

---

do some more studying then come back. we can continue this when you feel ready.




rollo gets rep for the last post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

Free will is god given, therefore I have free will not by my own choice to have free will, but by god's edict that I MUST have free will. Can I choose NOT to have free will?

---

YES.
most people do actually -
if you base all your decisions on base desires, emotions, impulses and automated responses then you don't really have free will, do you?

Quote:

---

The term itself implies a path or road of goodness that should be followed, yet you have the choice to diverge, The problem arises when religions state any divergence from this path results in hellfire, reducing free will to a form of celestial rebellion which is in turn, punished. Doesn't sound like free will at all if you ask me.

---

you don't think there's a path of 'goodness' (for lack of better term) to be followed?
try living completely irrationally - try eating nothing but mcdonalds for a year - try punching random strangers -
and see what 'hellfire' you bring upon yourself

so yes - we have free will, even free will to live like a savage if we choose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

Free will is god given, therefore I have free will not by my own choice to have free will, but by god's edict that I MUST have free will. Can I choose NOT to have free will?

The term itself implies a path or road of goodness that should be followed, yet you have the choice to diverge, The problem arises when religions state any divergence from this path results in hellfire, reducing free will to a form of celestial rebellion which is in turn, punished. Doesn't sound like free will at all if you ask me.

---

Lol Didn't look at it like that.

I'm going to use this in my anti-religion arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

You may have free will but your choices are ultimately limited to the possibilities he's allotted for you.
So... yes, he can.


Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"

It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.

---

This sounds like "I have no proof whatsoever but it's true"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ikke

Lol Didn't look at it like that.

I'm going to use this in my anti-religion arguments.


This sounds like "I have no proof whatsoever but it's true"

---

Sounds like you have no idea what you're arguing.
You cannot seperate the concept/definition of God from omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience because that is a part of that concept/definition.
I'm not saying it exists or is a fact that happened.

I'm saying, that's what God(the idea, the possible being) is.
If you're trying to dispute God, that's what you are disputing.
If your argument doesn't address that, then you have no argument at all.

You have to know what you're debating before you draw up an argument.
Sounds like you don't...

^ and yet modern science is moving closer each day to proving the universe itself is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
so why try to say 'god' is illogical and irrational? (not pointing to anyone specifically)

look at quantum entanglement for instance - all things are interconnected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Sounds like you have no idea what you're arguing.
You cannot seperate the concept/definition of God from omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience because that is a part of that concept/definition.
I'm not saying it exists or is a fact that happened.

I'm saying, that's what God(the idea, the possible being) is.
If you're trying to dispute God, that's what you are disputing.
If your argument doesn't address that, then you have no argument at all.

You have to know what you're debating before you draw up an argument.
Sounds like you don't...

---

I see, Posted something similar on page 1 or 2.
Filling in the definition of "God" with what we do know and not some ridiculous speculation.

Thought you were some religious guy saying god is so great we as humans cannot grasp his existance (as in a consiousness).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumm Ra

^ and yet modern science is moving closer each day to proving the universe itself is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
so why try to say 'god' is illogical and irrational? (not pointing to anyone specifically)

look at quantum entanglement for instance - all things are interconnected

---

Well, the universe would be omnipresent, it isn't actually expanding into anything, it is everything.
However, omnipotent? It is still bound by the finite expressions and principles that define it.

I think the best argument for a God is that those principles and intelligible expressions exist to begin with.
intelligible languages, codexes, syntaxes all require a sentient oracle...


Before a material universe could exist, this information had to exist as it's own dimension.
Just as the blueprint of a home is made before hand, a blueprint of everything that was and will be must have been as well. The data already exists now, we're just uncovering it piece by piece. The problem with an omnipotent self creating universe is simply that information itself cannot poof into existence. As I said before, only a sentient being of some sort could have defined these laws and expressions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Before a material universe could exist, this information had to exist as it's own dimension.
Just as the blueprint of a home is made before hand, a blueprint of everything that was and will be must have been as well. The data already exists now, we're just uncovering it piece by piece. The problem with an omnipotent self creating universe is simply that information itself cannot poof into existence. As I said before, only a sentient being of some sort could have defined these laws and expressions.

---

now we're getting somewhere :yes:^O^

i forgot who i was talking to this about on here - but we mentioned that maybe god works through multiple faculties
maybe that 'information dimension' IS god?
formless...and being the information and foundation of all things in existence

who said that one cannot learn anything in KTL ?

I truly believe - non of us knows the truth.
We all tryna see the light of it all right?
Well light can be good and can also be bad for some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

the singularity. not big bang. the IDEA that everything was once one.
zero evidence.

---

The big bang is evidence of the singularity, do you even know what the theory states? You basically just said: yes rain exists, but clouds? ehhh not so much.

Quote:

---

gravity is not completely understood. so this may or may not be true.

---

Gravity not being fully comprehend again, doesn't negate it's existence, what is your point?

Quote:

---

you are beginning to sound like a fundamentalist who gets mad when his faith is challenged.

---

You're beginning to sound presumptious as seeing how this is far from a challenge for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumm Ra

YES.
most people do actually -
if you base all your decisions on base desires, emotions, impulses and automated responses then you don't really have free will, do you?

you don't think there's a path of 'goodness' (for lack of better term) to be followed?
try living completely irrationally - try eating nothing but mcdonalds for a year - try punching random strangers -
and see what 'hellfire' you bring upon yourself

so yes - we have free will, even free will to live like a savage if we choose

---

Acting like a savage is still the act of choosing to do so. A choice or exercise of free will. If this free will is mandated- my point still stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"


It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.

---

You're describing what's called the omnipotence paradox, which fails for several reasons. This is like asking if god can draw a square circle which makes the question (and paradox) meaningless.

So, god creates this stone that he cannot lift at the moment of it's creation. Seeing as how god is omnipotent he can later alter the stone or himself so that he can then lift it. If he alters the stone, it is no longer the same stone he originally created, if he makes himself stronger in order to lift the original created stone, you can argue he was not previously truly omnipotent in the logical sense.

Another way of dealing with this question is as such: god doesn't operate within our understanding of the laws of reality. it follows that he created the laws, why does he have to obey them? This line of thought only pushes the problem back a step where you must then ask "can god create an object even he cannot transmute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

The big bang is evidence of the singularity, do you even know what the theory states? You basically just said: yes rain exists, but clouds? ehhh not so much.

no. i never even negated the big bang nor the singularity. my point is that you don't have evidence to support the theory of a singularity yet you have faith in the theory just because it makes sense. i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

since you cannot prove that the singularity existed, how is it any different than calling the universe proof that there is a God?




Gravity not being fully comprehend again, doesn't negate it's existence, what is your point?

ever consider that you don't fully comprehend God?



You're beginning to sound presumptious as seeing how this is far from a challenge for me.

---

as for the paradoxes you stated, God doesn't have arms so idk what lifting or creating a stone or drawing a circle has anything to do with anything.

i mean if you are talking about the man with a beard who sits on a cloud...then you might be on to something. but i think that the theists in this thread are talking about something a little more sophisticated.




rollo is on fire.