Philosophy Now Forum

Sappho de Miranda wrote:

Kuznetzova wrote:Challenge me, theists!

Debate me about your "god"!

http://i.imgur.com/RBEnS6k.jpg

Let's see. I don't really have a god or god/s but am happy to imagine one for you.

This god is imperfect but a quite powerful creator who has no interest in humanity or its destiny other than to tease it sometimes in the way a spider will be tormented by a stick. This god is far more interested in other creations and other godlike creatures which engage its curiosity more readily.

I call this god Q

Can I recommend that you engage humorously upon the challenge you set rather than spending your time in this thread whining about the lack of humor at this forum?

"that was clearly a joke thread, how anyone on Earth missed that is perhaps a mystery"

No mystery...every one, I think, recognized the intent of the thread...simply: no one gave enough of a shit to abide by his rules.

*shrug*

Arising_uk wrote:Was Atheist, didn't think about 'God' at all unless someone else brought 'it' up and if they did, "Show me one?", then Agnostic, still didn't think about 'God' at all unless someone else brought 'it' up and if they did, "How do you know?", then Militant Agnostic, still didn't think about 'God' at all unless someone else brought 'it' up and if they did, "I and you don't know if there is or isn't a 'God' or 'Gods' but if there is "Fuck 'em!". Now back to Atheist, "Show me one?".

You think via IT. Everything you look at is IT.
Have you ever asked IT to reveal its existence to you?

attofishpi wrote:You think via IT. ...

No, I think because I'm a body with senses and a language in and external world.

Everything you look at is IT. ...

Depends what you mean by 'IT'. If you mean Spinozas 'God' or Zuse's and Fredkins Calculating Space then maybe.

Have you ever asked IT to reveal its existence to you?

Many times and so far, nada.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You think via IT. ...

No, I think because I'm a body with senses and a language in and external world.

No, you think because you are an evolved sub-entity of IT, you have language because IT has evolved to the point that has enabled us as multi-cellular organisms to communicate independently.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Everything you look at is IT. ...

Depends what you mean by 'IT'. If you mean Spinozas 'God' or Zuse's and Fredkins Calculating Space then maybe.

You appear to rely heavily on those that have been and have said...for your thoughts...do you have anything original to offer?

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Have you ever asked IT to reveal its existence to you?

Many times and so far, nada.

Really? Good.

attofishpi wrote:No, you think because you are an evolved sub-entity of IT, you have language because IT has evolved to the point that has enabled us as multi-cellular organisms to communicate independently.

All a bit teleological and pantheistic for me.

Arising_uk wrote:You appear to rely heavily on those that have been and have said...for your thoughts...do you have anything original to offer?

Having studied Philosophy I can assure you that very few of yours or mine thoughts about such things haven't already been said and critiqued better. So your idea is that of the pantheistic teleologist. Much like Spinoza but if you want an updated version then Fredkin, Zuse, et ale idea of a computational simulation is the metaphysics for me, when I'm in the mood for such a thing that is, but like all such things it still doesn't solve the problem of cause and the causes cause, and the causes causes cause, etc, etc.

You mistake that your thoughts are original to you for them being unique.

Arising_uk wrote:Really? Good.

Why? As I've asked for the appearance of many of the proposed 'God's' and so far nothing has appeared.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:No, you think because you are an evolved sub-entity of IT, you have language because IT has evolved to the point that has enabled us as multi-cellular organisms to communicate independently.

All a bit teleological and pantheistic for me.

Ok teleological, but pantheism is as inert as to be atheism as far as im concerned. Panentheism on the other glove however is something far more considerable.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:You appear to rely heavily on those that have been and have said...for your thoughts...do you have anything original to offer?

Having studied Philosophy I can assure you that very few of yours or mine thoughts about such things haven't already been said and critiqued better. So your idea is that of the pantheistic teleologist. Much like Spinoza but if you want an updated version then Fredkin, Zuse, et ale idea of a computational simulation is the metaphysics for me, when I'm in the mood for such a thing that is, but like all such things it still doesn't solve the problem of cause and the causes cause, and the causes causes cause, etc, etc.

No pantheism is a wet flannel. I'm not looking for an ultimate cause, its beyond me, god knows i tried. Im looking more logically at end results...entropy and technological singularity (with a greater view than what appears from our recorded history) i think i should add a wink there.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Really? Good.

Why? As I've asked for the appearance of many of the proposed 'God's' and so far nothing has appeared.

Im not glad that you had no result...truly! just glad you bothered to ask...

attofishpi wrote:Ok teleological, but pantheism is as inert as to be atheism as far as im concerned. Panentheism on the other glove however is something far more considerable.

And yet you have terms such as 'sub-units'?

Arising_uk wrote:No pantheism is a wet flannel. I'm not looking for an ultimate cause, its beyond me, god knows i tried. ...

Anf yet you have terms like 'God'? Are you saying your 'god' is not the ultimate cause?

Im looking more logically at end results...entropy and technological singularity (with a greater view than what appears from our recorded history) i think i should add a wink there.

Then you should be looking at Zuse, Fredkin, et al for your metaphysics.

I have no idea what people mean when they use the term 'entropy' in philosophy forums?

Im not glad that you had no result...truly! just glad you bothered to ask...

And Zeus along with many others appeared not to reply so I've given that up in the face of their intransigence.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ok teleological, but pantheism is as inert as to be atheism as far as im concerned. Panentheism on the other glove however is something far more considerable.

And yet you have terms such as 'sub-units'?

What is your point?

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:No pantheism is a wet flannel. I'm not looking for an ultimate cause, its beyond me, god knows i tried. ...

Anf yet you have terms like 'God'? Are you saying your 'god' is not the ultimate cause?

attofishpi wrote:Im looking more logically at end results...entropy and technological singularity (with a greater view than what appears from our recorded history) i think i should add a wink there.

Then you should be looking at Zuse, Fredkin, et al for your metaphysics.
I have no idea what people mean when they use the term 'entropy' in philosophy forums?

I should be looking at me for my ''metaphysics'' instead of wasting my time bouncing ideas off of people with little to no idea.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Im not glad that you had no result...truly! just glad you bothered to ask...

And Zeus along with many others appeared not to reply so I've given that up in the face of their intransigence.

Trust me...there is only one ''God'' and most of the time i wish i never met it.

PS i missed a very important question in the prev post.

Arising_uk wrote:And yet you have terms like 'God'? Are you saying your 'god' is not the ultimate cause?

If God was the ultimate cause of YOU and yet NOT the ultimate cause of the universe...

Would you conform and label it God?

attofishpi wrote:Would you conform and label it God?

Nah! I'd label 'it' godlike and I'd still not conform unless 'it' gave me a good reason to do so.

attofishpi wrote:What is your point?

The idea of 'sub-units' implies a unity which implies pantheism.

I should be looking at me for my ''metaphysics'' instead of wasting my time bouncing ideas off of people with little to no idea.

You mean you?

Personally I bother myself not with metaphysics as I prefer Phenomenology and meataphysics(this is one of mine).

Trust me...there is only one ''God'' and most of the time i wish i never met it.

Since you've said that you met your 'God' after a traumatic event and a head injury I'd have to say I'll withhold my trust in this instance. Not least because I'd prefer you to show me one rather than just taking it upon your word and especially because your belief appears to be in line with your cultural background.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Would you conform and label it God?

Nah! I'd label 'it' godlike and I'd still not conform unless 'it' gave me a good reason to do so.

godlike what?

Arising_uk wrote:Since you've said that you met your 'God' after a traumatic event and a head injury I'd have to say I'll withhold my trust in this instance. Not least because I'd prefer you to show me one rather than just taking it upon your word and especially because your belief appears to be in line with your cultural background.

Now you're starting to piss me off with blatant misrepresentation and perhaps forgivable misinterpretation.