Philosophy Now Forum

God would neither be omnipotent nor omniscient. Perhaps a superconsciousness and far from divine. Only apart of the universe. God would be endless living essences. Probably some sort of warrior spirits or nothing at all. God is a beggar for life just like humans.
God probably left this place on its own and is off seeking higher challenges because god couldnt operate very well in the universe.

Dalek Prime wrote:

seeds wrote:

Lacewing wrote:What does this private chit chat conversation about what you eat or how you want to die on a couch have to do with the topic or... anything of public interest at all? Maybe you should PM each other privately.

I completely agree with Lacewing here.

Apparently, the phrase “derailing a thread” has absolutely no meaning to certain members of the forum (I blame thedoc for this latest episode).

You guys remind me of the dizzy hausfraus in a Monty Python skit.
_______

Actually, this thread is about conveying messages, no? And that's exactly what doc and I are doing; conveying messages. Highly topical.

We are just conveying messages you are not interested in, hence your chagrin.

Do you honestly think that long drawn-out (thread hijacking) arguments about “fat, sugar, and cholesterol” belong in the “Philosophy of Religion” section?

Why even have specifically titled subdivisions in the forum if certain inconsiderate members simply post whatever they want, wherever they want?

I cannot help but speculate that such flagrant ignoring of decorum and protocol, in combination with the mean-spiritedness of some of the posters (of which you yourself have been subjected to), are two of the main reasons why this forum has such a low membership.
_______

osgart wrote:God would neither be omnipotent nor omniscient. Perhaps a superconsciousness and far from divine. Only apart of the universe. God would be endless living essences. Probably some sort of warrior spirits or nothing at all. God is a beggar for life just like humans.
God probably left this place on its own and is off seeking higher challenges because god couldnt operate very well in the universe.

But he made me FAT so there is a message in there somewhere.

All this nonsense about omnipotence is derailing the thread, there is not message here.

seeds wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

seeds wrote: I completely agree with Lacewing here.

Apparently, the phrase “derailing a thread” has absolutely no meaning to certain members of the forum (I blame thedoc for this latest episode).

You guys remind me of the dizzy hausfraus in a Monty Python skit.
_______

Actually, this thread is about conveying messages, no? And that's exactly what doc and I are doing; conveying messages. Highly topical.

We are just conveying messages you are not interested in, hence your chagrin.

Do you honestly think that long drawn-out (thread hijacking) arguments about “fat, sugar, and cholesterol” belong in the “Philosophy of Religion” section?

_______

Did not god create the digestive tract?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

seeds wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Actually, this thread is about conveying messages, no? And that's exactly what doc and I are doing; conveying messages. Highly topical.

We are just conveying messages you are not interested in, hence your chagrin.

Do you honestly think that long drawn-out (thread hijacking) arguments about “fat, sugar, and cholesterol” belong in the “Philosophy of Religion” section?

_______

Did not god create the digestive tract?

And there you have it. Nice answer, btw.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

seeds wrote: Do you honestly think that long drawn-out (thread hijacking) arguments about “fat, sugar, and cholesterol” belong in the “Philosophy of Religion” section?

_______

Did not god create the digestive tract?

And there you have it. Nice answer, btw.

Thanks.
And by the way since the relationship between food and my excess weight is the one thing in my life I do not think I have in control. If i was not an atheist I wonder what god is trying to tell me, by making me such that I'm always fucking hungry.
And if God is nature, as Spinoza would have it then this is my key question.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ...my excess weight ...

Funny the images you get when you can't see people. I always pictured you as a lanky bean-pole type. But then, I just can't help seeing PE as a twelve year old boy. He's probably a sagacious-looking elderly gent.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ...my excess weight ...

Funny the images you get when you can't see people. I always pictured you as a lanky bean-pole type. But then, I just can't help seeing PE as a twelve year old boy. He's probably a sagacious-looking elderly gent.

I picture you as a curvy redhead!

I've always been generously proportioned. I'm not dangerously fat, but it has been a lifelong struggle keeping it down but now I'm getting older loosing the weight is getting harder, and the baseline seems to want to creep up.
My Dad was dangerously fat for most of his life, so I've managed to avoid that. But genes are genes.

As for PE, it is beyond the latitude offered to me by the moderators to mention that I've always seen him as something of a bumpkin with a tendency to chew straw.
This is definitely NOT PE.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:35 am

attofishpi wrote:So!! You are a polyagnostic atheist!

Nope, just wondered how dontaskme knows there is just one 'God'?

Because there is only one You.

.

Dontaskme wrote:Because there is only one You..

Blimey! Then who are you?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:08 pm

Dontaskme wrote:Because there is only one You..

Blimey! Then who are you?

I'm in You.

Depends what you mean as you are most assuredly not me but if you mean the 'we' of language then sure there is some sense in that.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:24 pm Depends what you mean as you are most assuredly not me but if you mean the 'we' of language then sure there is some sense in that.

I'm not you, there is only you.

There is only you because there is no other than you.

I'm in you in the sense you have created me in your mind. You said earlier..''Blimey! Then who are you?'' as if I actually existed separate from you, but all you were doing was responding to some information on a computer screen, there is nothing outside your consciousness separate from it.

.

Dontaskme wrote:I'm not you, there is only you.

Who said that?

There is only you because there is no other than you.

Is someone saying something?

I'm in you in the sense you have created me in your mind. You said earlier..''Blimey! Then who are you?'' as if I actually existed separate from you, but all you were doing was responding to some information on a computer screen, there is nothing outside your consciousness separate from it.

Nonsense really.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:45 pm

Dontaskme wrote:I'm not you, there is only you.

Who said that?

No one.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:45 pmNonsense really.

Yep, nonsense, but it's fun to try and make sense of it.