Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Pachomius from neutronflux:

"Your trying to define a none physical being with physical context and a limited language.

Shrugs.. "



Dear neutronflux:

You keep on seeking to eschew definition of crucial words by drumming on my words about God making Him a physical and limited entity - that is plainly most gratuitous from your part, but obviously you are taking flight from honest intelligent productive employment of your brain.

I am into God in the realm of existence which is the most broad context within which to discourse on anything at all without any limitations - do you get that, or you are so self-delimited in your heart and mind in treating an issue God exists or not, so that your God is only the one with hell in His heart and mind, and also in quest of blood sacrifice and/or human sacrifice: how you and your God are so very primitive.

From my part I define God as follows:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

My God to His core credit is a doer and not just a talker.

Anything less than having created man and the universe and everything with a beginning, that God is not worthy of my attention, and I don't mean worship - my God is indifferent to worship altogether.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

From my part I define God as follows:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

My God to His core credit is a doer and not just a talker.

Ok? What has god done for your soul? Do you have a soul? Does it end with your physical death?

And doesn’t change the fact you made false allegations of what people post.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Pachomius

You

Hey, what about your experience of your existence, does that count for evidence?

Nothing if your going to lie about what people post, and falsely label people’s experience as “religion”

You

originally posted by: Pachomius

I see that you all wrongly conflate God with religion, you can have religion without God.

While you keep placing god in you dogma of a religious definition.

If you don’t believe in gods. That is your right and free will.

What your doing is just seeing people argue in circular logic to your own satisfaction, and doesn’t honor the love and glory of a true god.

Again. If alien extraterrestrials created life and earth, which is a real possibility, would that make them gods. Or is there more to being a god than creating physical objects.

Do people have a soul, and can souls only be brought into existence by a true god?

a reply to: Pachomius

Anything less than having created man and the universe and everything with a beginning, that God is not worthy of my attention, and I don't mean worship - my God is indifferent to worship altogether.

If your god is just a physical being making physical stuff that can be achieved by other physical beings, then your god is not worthy of worship anymore than a biophysicist doing stuff and making a clone?

a reply to: Pachomius

my God is indifferent to worship altogether.

You just made belief in your good a moot point and irrelevant.

So why bother with this thread? When your own god is a indifferent to your own belief?

As usual, you guys are not talking in focus about the existence of God, please get to the issue, God exists or not - whatever your concept of God, okay?


My concept of God is "God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning ."


But first give your concept of God, in particular what He has done, by which there is evidence of His existence, and don't bother to talk about His attributes like omnipotence and the whole useless lot, just stick to His acts.



Appendix

[For your orientation]

For my definition of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [17 words]

And for universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

Addendum

I seem to always forget to ask you guys, namely, to tell me something relevant to this thread, and you anyone and I will work on it as to reach consensus, embedding the point of what we are concerned with.


Okay, in less than 50 words, I am waiting to read your some idea, and you anyone and I will commence to exchange thoughts to arrive at consensus.


The goal of this exercise is for me to know whether you have any interest at all on the necessity of consensus: on at least what a topic of conversation is all about among the participants of the conversation.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

As usual, you guys are not talking in focus about the existence of God,

Why?

You just posted

my God is indifferent to worship altogether.

Your god doesn’t care if I think the universe was created through a process totally void of a being.

Ok? What has god done for your soul? Do you have a soul? Does it end with your physical death?

a reply to: Pachomius

Do you have a soul, a spiritual energy that can only be created by a god?

From neutronflux:
If your god is just a physical being making physical stuff that can be achieved by other physical beings, then your god is not worthy of worship anymore than a biophysicist doing stuff and making a clone?
_______________________



Tell you what, go and worship your God, okay?


I am not after religion like you, but after knowledge of what entities make up the number of beings with a beginning, and that there has got to be some entity with no beginning accreditable for the entities with a beginning to come into existence.


Dear neutronflux, go and practice your religion which is all about worship in order to get reward like heaven, and avoidance of hell.


That is why I tell everyone here that God and religion/worship are not identical.

You can have a religion/worship of a rabbit's foot, but God is in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

a reply to: Pachomius

Okay, in less than 50 words, I am waiting to read your some idea, and you anyone and I will commence to exchange thoughts to arrive at consensus.

There is no consensus on the definition of God. The attempt to form a consensus is futile, in my opinion. (20 words)

Just a quick look at wikipedia:

God has been conceived as either personal or impersonal. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, there is an absence of belief in God. In agnosticism, the existence of God is deemed unknown or unknowable. God has also been conceived as the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.
God

I highlighted what I think that you are expecting consensus on "greatest conceivable existent". That may also be what is referred to as Metaphysical necessity

The concept of a metaphysically necessary being plays an important role in certain arguments for the existence of God, especially the ontological argument, but metaphysical necessity is also one of the central concepts in late 20th century analytic philosophy. Metaphysical necessity has proved a controversial concept, and criticized by David Hume, Immanuel Kant, J. L. Mackie, and Richard Swinburne, among others.

Metaphysical necessity is contrasted with other types of necessity. For example, the philosophers of religion John Hick[2] and William L. Rowe[3] distinguished the following three:

1) factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it.

2) causal necessity (subsumed by Hicks under the former type): a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it.

3) logical necessity: a logically necessary being is a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds.

Even if you happened to be a University Professor teaching an advanced class in Metaphysics, you would only be able to have consensus among your students until they got their final grade in your class. Afterward, they would just go on with their own lives; praying to their personal gods, or going about their daily lives with no reference to a god at all.

originally posted by: pthena

There is no consensus on the definition of God. The attempt to form a consensus is futile, in my opinion. (20 words)

This is why God has been referred to as the ineffable, meaning God's greatness is incapable of being properly described by words.

The Logos (meaning Reason, the cause of creation) when it manifested uninhibited claimed that God is both Good, Just, Omniscient, and our Dad. The full realization of the deeper objective Truth that these words allude to become revealed the more we in-tune ourselves to righteousness

originally posted by: Pachomius
From neutronflux:
If your god is just a physical being making physical stuff that can be achieved by other physical beings, then your god is not worthy of worship anymore than a biophysicist doing stuff and making a clone?
_______________________



Tell you what, go and worship your God, okay?


I am not after religion like you, but after knowledge of what entities make up the number of beings with a beginning, and that there has got to be some entity with no beginning accreditable for the entities with a beginning to come into existence.


Dear neutronflux, go and practice your religion which is all about worship in order to get reward like heaven, and avoidance of hell.


That is why I tell everyone here that God and religion/worship are not identical.

You can have a religion/worship of a rabbit's foot, but God is in concept the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

How is asking if god created souls a “religion”

My point is if your god only makes physical things from physical things, then anyone that can make physical things is a god?

Ok. Where did your god pull the building materials to create the universe. And how can you show it was your god, and not a process void of intelligence like the Big Bang?

a reply to: cooperton

The Logos (meaning Reason, the cause of creation) when it manifested uninhibited

When and how was this manifest? To manifest is to show plainly; to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding.

become revealed the more we in-tune ourselves to righteousness

I'm afraid just thinking about that statement throws me into emotional conflict.

My evil nature says: "Yes! Yes! Claim it! You do that! Claim it!"
My superstitious nature says: "Dude! You know that would be neither true nor pious. That's hubris. The gods will be angry!"

From pthena:
"Just a quick look at wikipedia: God has been conceived as either personal or impersonal. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, there is an absence of belief in God. In agnosticism, the existence of God is deemed unknown or unknowable. God has also been conceived as the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent.
[1] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God."
____________________



Haha, gotcha!


Always regurgitating insipidly other people's thinking and writing.


Please employ your precious brain to do your very own personally thought up and thought out ideas, okay?

And do your very own personally drafted writing, preferably in few but pithy and clear and simple language.



Try this: Think out how you come to get acquainted with existence, in less than 50 words.

a reply to: Pachomius

You have to quote Wikipedia to validate your belief?

Again.

Do you have a soul, a spiritual energy that can only be created by a god?

Where did your god pull the building materials to create the universe. And how can you show it was your god, and not a process void of intelligence like the Big Bang?

From neutronfux:
"My point is if your god only makes physical things from physical things, then anyone that can make physical things is a god?"
_______________________________



I fear I should give up on neutronflux, how many times do I have to repeat that God is not only physical nor only limited to physical causation, but God is in all realms of existence.

Haven't I said time and again that existence is the most broad and extensive realm, so that you cannot contain existence within the realm of material or physical things, and God is not limited to only physical causation, like making the nose on our face so that it does not fall off our face uncertainly?


Yes, I say that God and existence are co-extensive, except that God is the creator cause of all entities that have a beginning, and God is not with any beginning, that is why He is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.



Think, dear neutronflux:

1. There is existence i.e. existence is the default status of reality.

2. There are beings with a beginning to their existence,.

3. This implicates that there is a being which is not from any point of beginning in time or in space or in causation from another being.

4. God is the only example of an entity that is self-existing.

5. That explains everything about entities with a beginning, how and why they got to have come into existence.



Okay, dear neutroflux, tell me in your own words what you understand of my text above, okay?

I mean in the enumerated list of honest intelligent and productive thinking from yours truly.

originally posted by: pthena

When and how was this manifest? To manifest is to show plainly; to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding.

Christ came, called us brothers, identified God as our Dad, and then proved his word by conquering death. He demonstrated he was the Logos (Reason) by having unbeatable Reasonal discourse.

I'm afraid just thinking about that statement throws me into emotional conflict.

My evil nature says: "Yes! Yes! Claim it! You do that! Claim it!"
My superstitious nature says: "Dude! You know that would be neither true nor pious. That's hubris. The gods will be angry!"

Its a path, not a possession

On second thought I do fear with 99% certainly that I must give up on neutronflux - he is all neutron and flux, nothing stable with him.


He does not have any subtlety in his reading and writing at all - even less so with his cerebral comprehension of things in the world of ideas.


Okay, tell me dear neutronflux, what is your reaction to this text as follows:


the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog



PS Perhaps he is playing the lazy dog, with much offense to man's best friend.



That is why I find amusement with guys like him.

a reply to: Pachomius

Haha, gotcha!


Always regurgitating insipidly other people's thinking and writing.

Always regurgitating? Surely, I must only regurgitate sometimes.

I merely considered what your definition of God in concept is and found, to my own satisfaction, where it had already been expressed. ie. Metaphysical Necessity. I am either correct in my assessment of your definition or I am incorrect.

Think out how you come to get acquainted with existence, in less than 50 words.

Okay, I'm thinking. [3 words]

Dear pthena, thanks that you are in consonance with my modesty aside honest intelligent productive thinking mode.


Poster by the user name of Phantom423(?) seems to have taken a leave of absence, and I was hoping that he and I could work out together to concur on a concept of what is evidence, for he is one discoverer of the wonders of science, that he can't stop mentioning and demanding evidence for the existence of God.

And I keep on asking him to volunteer what he knows of any concept of God, but he insists that he does not in effect give any damn about any concept of God, etc., etc. etc.


Finally I thought that perhaps he might talk with me about what is evidence, and what happened - he took a leave of absence.



Okay pthena, what do you say, shall we work together as to come to a mutually agreed on concept of evidence?