Philosophy Now Forum

Godfree wrote:To describe god as "all" ,does not suggest it has a brain, thought ,a consciousness , power or influence on anything .
what your describing is the physical world , stars and planets ,
and this is somehow controlled by the nothing again ,,???
if god is everything , everything doesn't have a consciousness ,
rocks and stones don't planets and stars don't ,
so your really still faced with the same question ,
and somehow imagine your explanation sidesteps it ,
this all , "it knows every thought you have and are about to make"
science will NEVER PROVE THE PLAUSABILITY OF SUCH NONSENSE ,
so try and answer the question where and how does god store who and what it is , saying god is everything , well everything is not a consciousness ,
the universe is not a brain with a consciousness ,
basically I see you as doing the same as the monkey that thought ,
thunder was a god , fire was a god , the natural forces were god ,
in which way has your thinking evolved ,,?????
or are you still that monkey , still entrenched in ignorance ,,???

Mon.key...a single key to our evolution? Of the two of us, you are ignorant in relation to God, I would not be harping on about it if i didn't know it exists.

Where 'it' stores information, where 'its' ''consciousness'' is, is something that still puzzles me.

The universe is far more complicated when you know God exists, it simplifies nothing.

chaz wyman wrote:

attofishpi wrote:There was a reason God was 'put on the page' and that was from man's individual experience with 'it' ...each culture has developed their own interpretation of God through those experiences.

The fact that God has left our reality without the benefit of objective proof leads one that knows it exists with the consideration that there is a greater reason for DOUBT

Not only have you invented god, but you claim to know his mind!!
But - that's easy. If you have invented him then you can so easily invent his thoughts.
The claim that you know his mind is ample evidence that you in fact invented him

No, the fact that god has left us with no objective proof, is proof that you have invented him subjectively.
It's all quite easy to see what is going on here.

Im not sure where i am claiming to know its mind. I know it knows your mind better than you do however.
Im inventing nothing. I am drawing conclusions from my 15 years of experiences of ''it'', panentheism is the glove that fits.

There is no objective proof for the masses, yet one can know on a personal level, leaving the majority with DOUBT ...why?
There were commandments to adhere to, perhaps if everyone KNEW God exists, then more pressure would be placed on the system in relation to entropy.
Seems God is quite 'happy' to purge souls from the system.

chaz wyman wrote:Okay so is there any difference between; everything is god, and god is everything.
And if everything is god then why call him god?

Shall we call it Fred? Our technology, although at the infant stage of development certainly permits us to comprehend how an entity that knows all could exist.

Everything i state is from personal experience of 'God'. I wouldn't bother if i hadn't had countless experiences of it, i would probably still be agnostic.

The fact is you will never prove i am wrong, and i will never prove i am right, so it truly is a rather pointless excercise, but at least i didnt sit on my laurel too cowardly to actually make mention of it.

chaz wyman wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
There was a reason God was 'put on the page' and that was from man's individual experience with 'it' ...each culture has developed their own interpretation of God through those experiences.

Not only have you invented god, but you claim to know his mind!!
But - that's easy. If you have invented him then you can so easily invent his thoughts.
The claim that you know his mind is ample evidence that you in fact invented him

The fact that God has left our reality without the benefit of objective proof leads one that knows it exists with the consideration that there is a greater reason for DOUBT.[/color]

No, the fact that god has left us with no objective proof, is proof that you have invented him subjectively.
It's all quite easy to see what is going on here.

Just for a change , I agree Chaz ,,totally , it seems ,
Atto is looking at the idea of some sort of god ,
without any consideration for the mechanics of how , where , why ,
it seems an automatic assumption , and I wonder if it only takes ,
a few generations , or a few thousand to imprint the concept of god ,
into our DNA , like our fear of snakes etc , it's instinctive ,
we have been fed the lie for so long , even our DNA believes it ,,!!!

attofishpi wrote:

Godfree wrote:To describe god as "all" ,does not suggest it has a brain, thought ,a consciousness , power or influence on anything .

There is no objective proof for the masses, yet one can know on a personal level, leaving the majority with DOUBT ...why?
ON WHAT DO YOU BASE "KNOW" ,,,DO YOU HAVE PROOF ,,??

chaz wyman wrote:Okay so is there any difference between; everything is god, and god is everything.
And if everything is god then why call him god?

Shall we call it Fred? Our technology, although at the infant stage of development certainly permits us to comprehend how an entity that knows all could exist.
IF THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE,,,THEN AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF "ALL"
Everything i state is from personal experience of 'God'. I wouldn't bother if i hadn't had countless experiences of it, i would probably still be agnostic.
YOU IMAGINED GOD ,, AND IMAGINE IT IS PROOF,,,!!!
The fact is you will never prove i am wrong, and i will never prove i am right, so it truly is a rather pointless excercise, but at least i didnt sit on my laurel too cowardly to actually make mention of it.

ATHEISM IS RIGHT TO MAKE NO CLAIM,,,THE MISTAKE IS TO CLAIM GOD,,

Godfree wrote: ATHEISM IS RIGHT TO MAKE NO CLAIM,,,THE MISTAKE IS TO CLAIM GOD,,

That might be true of atheism; but it is NOT true of you.

[edited by iMod]

chaz wyman wrote:

Godfree wrote: ATHEISM IS RIGHT TO MAKE NO CLAIM,,,THE MISTAKE IS TO CLAIM GOD,,

That might be true of atheism; but it is NOT true of you.

[edited by iMod]

You claim I make claims ,,???
then you claim to understand my posts ,,??
you seem to be making a lot of claims here Chaz,
I claim no god , and my proof is the lack of proof it exists ,
illogical , impossible ,, and the down right stupid ,, are often obvious to see ,
but that is for me to see , and I don't look for everyone,
each and everyone must see life through their filter system ,
REALITY IS AN INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE ,
I say if some idiot had not put god onto the page called reality ,
I would not need to say ,
NO that is incorrect ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Godfree wrote: ATHEISM IS RIGHT TO MAKE NO CLAIM,,,THE MISTAKE IS TO CLAIM GOD,,

That might be true of atheism; but it is NOT true of you.

[edited by iMod]

You claim I make claims ,,???
then you claim to understand my posts ,,??
you seem to be making a lot of claims here Chaz,
I claim no god , and my proof is the lack of proof it exists ,
illogical , impossible ,, and the down right stupid ,, are often obvious to see ,
but that is for me to see , and I don't look for everyone,
each and everyone must see life through their filter system ,
REALITY IS AN INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE ,
I say if some idiot had not put god onto the page called reality ,
I would not need to say ,
NO that is incorrect ,,!!!

As my comments were edited, I do not feel obliged to respond to yours.

[edited by iMod][/quote]
You claim I make claims ,,???
then you claim to understand my posts ,,??
you seem to be making a lot of claims here Chaz,
I claim no god , and my proof is the lack of proof it exists ,
illogical , impossible ,, and the down right stupid ,, are often obvious to see ,
but that is for me to see , and I don't look for everyone,
each and everyone must see life through their filter system ,
REALITY IS AN INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE ,
I say if some idiot had not put god onto the page called reality ,
I would not need to say ,
NO that is incorrect ,,!!![/quote]
As my comments were edited, I do not feel obliged to respond to yours.[/quote]
I didn't edit your comments , they must have been fairly out there ,
iMod doesn't usually interfere ,why don't you use your brain ,
and rephrase it , in a manor that would be tolerated ,
if it was just hurling abuse , iMod probably did the right thing ,?
did you actually have something to say , or was it ,
Chaz maintaining the status quo again,,??

Godfree wrote:
I didn't edit your comments , they must have been fairly out there ,
iMod doesn't usually interfere ,why don't you use your brain ,
and rephrase it , in a manor that would be tolerated ,
if it was just hurling abuse , iMod probably did the right thing ,?
did you actually have something to say , or was it ,
Chaz maintaining the status quo again,,??

I did not claim you edited my post.
All I am saying, is that as they were edited, they were incomplete and so the thread is lost.
I don't see this as an excuse for you to be abusive.

iMod WU wrote:

attofishpu wrote:Why did you interfere with chaz's arrogance?

For precisely that reason..

That he is arrogant and demeaning to others...negating actual intelligent debate?

chaz wyman wrote:

Godfree wrote:
I didn't edit your comments , they must have been fairly out there ,
iMod doesn't usually interfere ,why don't you use your brain ,
and rephrase it , in a manor that would be tolerated ,
if it was just hurling abuse , iMod probably did the right thing ,?
did you actually have something to say , or was it ,
Chaz maintaining the status quo again,,??

I did not claim you edited my post.
All I am saying, is that as they were edited, they were incomplete and so the thread is lost.
I don't see this as an excuse for you to be abusive.

Abusive ,,which comment do you consider abuse ,,??
the thread is lost , or your going to pout and refuse to play ,
because you were told off ,,???
having a wee tantrum ,,???
If it was something worth saying ,???
it would be easy to rephrase it , and make your point , if there was one ,?
Do you deny you are maintaining the status quo ,,???
by refusing to see any replacement as a good idea ,,????

attofishpi wrote:

iMod WU wrote:

attofishpu wrote:Why did you interfere with chaz's arrogance?

For precisely that reason..

That he is arrogant and demeaning to others...negating actual intelligent debate?

The role of skeptic is the easy one to play ,
you just challenge everything , you find fault in everyone ,
and who amongst us doesn't have faults ,
so a skeptic can always find a reason to be negative and arrogant .
The Agnostics will argue , skepticism is the only rational response ,
to have a firm belief either way , frustrates the skeptic ,
maybe it's a form of jealousy , they wish they had the commitment ,
and the faith to stand up and be counted ,
I don't think sitting on the fence is the answer ,
Sooner or later we are going to have to face reality ,
In reality there is no god or heaven ,,,!!!!

Godfree wrote:
Abusive ,,which comment do you consider abuse ,,??

why don't you use your brain ,

If my posts are being hacked about for abuse, then I assume that we are under a new regime.

iMod WU wrote:

attofishpu wrote:Why did you interfere with chaz's arrogance?

For precisely that reason..

And you don't think that is arrogant of you?

Schoolmarmish.

reasonvemotion wrote:Schoolmarmish.

And the school marm does not seem to like Chaz, she allows others to insult me, but seems hell bent on editing my posts.