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

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The main takeaway here is that there is no actual definition of god except for a poetic description that is pure hypothesis and not based on any reliable data. Pachomius is doing his or her not very best to get around that by devising a semantic argument that only approaches the ontology of the matter by proving via plain rhetoric we must assume a basic understanding without explicitly demonstrating this entity or creature in any substantial manner. Lazy, unproductive and dishonest.

Maybe when you complain hard enough God Himself will reply.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The main takeaway here is that there is no actual definition of god except for a poetic description that is pure hypothesis and not based on any reliable data. Pachomius is doing his or her not very best to get around that by devising a semantic argument that only approaches the ontology of the matter by proving via plain rhetoric we must assume a basic understanding without explicitly demonstrating this entity or creature in any substantial manner. Lazy, unproductive and dishonest.

Maybe when you complain hard enough God Himself will reply.

Many millions of worthy victims who begged for his help would probably disagree. But we will never know because there's nothing left of them to ask.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes, the suffering is terrible.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The main takeaway here is that there is no actual definition of god except for a poetic description that is pure hypothesis and not based on any reliable data. Pachomius is doing his or her not very best to get around that by devising a semantic argument that only approaches the ontology of the matter by proving via plain rhetoric we must assume a basic understanding without explicitly demonstrating this entity or creature in any substantial manner. Lazy, unproductive and dishonest.

So I'm having an issue with the use of the word "God" in this discussion. The problem I see is we have two different factions going on with one being mainly the God from the Abrahamic religions and the other is an intelligent design type force, and so these are basically two totally different things, so which one are we discussing here...lol

I suggest for the sake of the argument we just say intelligent design and leave all the human created faith based ideology out of the discussion. This does mean that a person can't believe that the Abrahamic God exists, but quoting bible verses is not the point of this discussion.

A intelligent design outside of our universe is more of a force than life and if we debate whether that type of force is needed or not I doubt that same force is interested in human morals, or even humans in general.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Come on now.
What if TzarChasm doesn't work on a shrimping boat?

a reply to: Xtrozero

We're actually discussing whether creation has a creator or not.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The main takeaway here is that there is no actual definition of god except for a poetic description that is pure hypothesis and not based on any reliable data. Pachomius is doing his or her not very best to get around that by devising a semantic argument that only approaches the ontology of the matter by proving via plain rhetoric we must assume a basic understanding without explicitly demonstrating this entity or creature in any substantial manner. Lazy, unproductive and dishonest.

So I'm having an issue with the use of the word "God" in this discussion. The problem I see is we have two different factions going on with one being mainly the God from the Abrahamic religions and the other is an intelligent design type force, and so these are basically two totally different things, so which one are we discussing here...lol

I suggest for the sake of the argument we just say intelligent design and leave all the human created faith based ideology out of the discussion. This does mean that a person can't believe that the Abrahamic God exists, but quoting bible verses is not the point of this discussion.

A intelligent design outside of our universe is more of a force than life and if we debate whether that type of force is needed or not I doubt that same force is interested in human morals, or even humans in general.

For all intents and purposes, there's no difference in concepts. The whole intelligent design hypothesis is the job description of the abrahamic entity. My post above still applies.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

We're actually discussing whether creation has a creator or not.

That gets deep into the chicken or egg type scenario. The only way out of that is to say God is outside of our universe and is infinite in creation of infinite universes, so on and so forth...got to remove time and make everything infinite.

The main problem with a creator ideal is just the simple statement of why is one needed at all? If there are infinite universes with infinite combinations of what we call rules and laws that they follow our existence is just one of them, another universe might just be one big black hole as example.

Terms like life and creation are human constructs created within our abstract minds to explain things that are not truly reality. Is a human "life" or are we a complicated mass of chemistry? We make it special, the universe doesn't.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Ok, end of discussion.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Xtrozero

We're actually discussing whether creation has a creator or not.

And so far, nada.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, logically a creation has a creator but we can 't agree on this being a creation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

For all intents and purposes, there's no difference in concepts. The whole intelligent design hypothesis is the job description of the abrahamic entity. My post above still applies.

But then God does not use evolution as a tool, God is concerned with whether I do evil or good acts with many of these acts biological based. The term takes this a different direction with the whole human construct of religions dumped into the mix.
The term intelligent design of the universe can not be explain in anyway since it would be outside of reality, so we throw some meat on this entity we call God and make it personal since we are the center of our own universe.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

Well, logically a creation has a creator but we can 't agree on this being a creation.

Well yes the universe was made and so something made it.... Ya I get it...But if we talk about things outside of our universe where time may not exists whether matter can be both infinite and nothing at the same time "made" is not a concept there.

We can't not comprehend that because in our universe time exists there are beginnings and endings, infinity does not exist outside of our abstract concept of math, humans will not be humans in a million years as time moves on and everything comes and goes, continuous evolution with or without a God.

a reply to: Xtrozero

There's more than one way to feed the ego. God works in mysterious ways for a reason, and they are all about attachment and self realization.

I'm not responsible for what everyone is posting, just saying.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

There's more than one way to feed the ego. God works in mysterious ways for a reason, and they are all about attachment and self realization.

Once again pure human conceptual abstracts... We are very good at that you know... Everything around you was an abstract thought first...didn't exist in our universe until we made it. Even your breakfast was an abstract first then you made it outside of the ability of our universe.

The problem is we can make realities happen directly from abstract thoughts, just look at your computer you are using, but that doesn't mean every abstract thought will also be reality, and this is where we tend to fall into a grey area. Since we have proof that abstract thoughts can be reality we dump many other things into that bucket, like Big Foot, Star Wars, religions, intelligent design...and so on....

I have argued against the question asked of "if humans would be better off if we never thought of religion?" and my answer has always been is if we didn't have religion we would not be human with the ability to think in the abstract, and so most likely no we would not be better off.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
I'm not responsible for what everyone is posting, just saying.

Disclaimer not needed unless you feel guilty about something...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

It wouldn't be the first time God punished a group of people for the mistake of one.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Everything around you was an abstract thought first...didn't exist in our universe until we made it.

Did trees exist before we made them?

If a tree falls in a wood and there is no one around to hear it fall.......does it make a sound?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Xtrozero

It wouldn't be the first time God punished a group of people for the mistake of one.

In modern culture that is classified as a war crime.