Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter — Frank Apisa
dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used — Frank Apisa
jorndoe
973
Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter
— Frank Apisa
Both. And...
dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used
— Frank Apisa — jorndoe
Just (say) three will do. Don't be coy, Frank, do tell.I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god." — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.5k
I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god."
— Frank Apisa
Just (say) three will do. Don't be coy, Frank, do tell. — 180 Proof
Thanks! :up:No problemo! Each subtly different. — Frank Apisa
Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like all other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true.#1:
What do I mean when I use the word “god” ...?
I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. Again, theism is not true.I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
#1:
What do I mean when I use the word “god” ...?
I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like every other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true. — 180 Proof
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. — 180 Proof
Again, theism is not true. — 180 proof
can stand up and move my arms. Yes, you can do two things at once and here you are doing one thing (daydreaming) while not doing another as efficiently or not doing entirely at all (driving). How is this contradictory? — substantivalism
you will support your burden of proof on christianity? That Jesus really existed or was god.
21h — substantivalism
F-it. I'm done, this is giving me anxiety with your constant convolution of the discussion or constant re-adjusting of positions/lines of argumentation. I'm going to take the advice I should have from the other few posters I directly asked about this discussion or you and just stop. — substantivalism
But you already have! Thanks, Frank. :smirk:Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond. — Frank Apisa
Assuming certain conditions satisfied by our universe such as the predictability of the past and future, the limited speed of matter and energy, and the expansion of space translated into the language of Lorentz manifolds, an inevitable consequence is that any path a particle has traveled to get to this current moment in time cannot be longer than a fixed upper bound which can be interpreted as an upper bound on the age of the universe.
180 Proof
1.5k
Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond.
— Frank Apisa
But you already have! Thanks, Frank. :smirk: — 180 Proof
We've already discussed it for months now. We don't even disagree actually because your assertions are incoherent (not even false) and don't address my arguments substantively. It'd help 'our discussion' if you'd carefully read what I've written on this topic (here and elsewhere) and respond accordingly, but you haven't and still won't (or can't). I now only respond to your 'agnostic confusion' in order to edify - provoke - others who might be as confused, though not as incorrigibly as you clearly are, Frank.If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so. — Frank Apisa
I don't understand why there isn't a "before the big bang" — opt-ae
I completely understand what you mean by there's no evidence to suggest g/G that there is no evidence to suggest ancient civilizations — opt-ae
I tend to agree with my own theory about ancient simulations (involved in big bang science). — opt-ae
Banno
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to claim that god exists; nor any reason to suppose that he does not.
But I don't think we need stop at that. We can ask if there is a coherent notion of god.
This, of course, puts the ball in the theists court; it is up to them to present a description of god that is consistent and tenable. But we can go a step further and say that if an agnostic is going to claim that god is possible, then they also should be able to present an account of what god is, that is consistent and tenable.
And in the absence of such an account, atheism seems the reasonable conclusion. — Banno
180 Proof
1.5k
If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so.
— Frank Apisa
We've already discussed it for months now. We don't even disagree actually because your assertions are incoherent (not even false) and don't address my arguments substantively. It'd help 'our discussion' if you'd carefully read what I've written on this topic (here and elsewhere) and respond accordingly, but you haven't and still won't (or can't). I now only respond to your 'agnostic confusion' in order to edify - provoke - others who might be as confused, though not as incorrigibly, as you clearly are, Frank. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.