Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

For some idjids should be compulsory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? You think that a theist, who isn't a Christian or even espouses any organized religion, is comparable to Islamists? Maybe you have some trauma that has led to a persecution complex. Zealotry is touting science you clearly don't understand (blind faith), and instead of learning the science, just "refusing to tolerate other perspectives or conflicting beliefs".

If you don't like it, don't bring up the exact same subject in two different threads:

"We have objective compelling evidence of abiogenesis."
http://sciforums.com/threads/defini...-to-rule-them-all.163061/page-26#post-3640608​

Same thread, same subject. Can't you remember what you wrote and where?
More likely this is you just trying to expunge your own doubts, since you've arduously avoided my explanation of your scientific illiteracy: http://sciforums.com/threads/are-we-made-in-gods-image.163113/page-18#post-3640400

Demanding a "scientifically supportable" answer is part of your blind faith in scientism. If you understood science at all, you'd know that many subjects are beyond its methodology. And no, the simple belief in God, especially without any religion, does not demand others believe anything, nor cause any death. Again, seems you may suffer from a persecution complex.

I've read what you've posted, and you obviously don't have the never to discuss the actual science of your own ignorant claims. Hence all this unwarranted vitriol and distraction. I can't help it if you find actual science (as opposed to your dubious comprehension of it) "offensive". It's your personal problem if your own doubts are eating at you.

You know someone's desperate when they have to point out simple typos.

No, I understand the science you ignorantly tried to argue, and I believe in God due to my own experience and reasoning, not any religion, scripture, or authority.

You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the science you tout (blind faith). No need to fathom what you've put on full display, for everyone to see.
I've already given answers in both these threads, which you'd know if you weren't too lazy to look.

Again, not a Christian, so I don't think the burning bush was literal. But I can see why you'd feel you need such a straw man. Helps you avoid your own doubts.
No one cares how any atheist defines God.

A general definition of God is simple. It's a being with the traditional attributes of omniscience, omnipresence (is everything, as I've already said in this thread), omnipotence, etc.. But if you want to talk about if or how God may intervene in the world, if people can have a personal relation to it, if it's good (problem of evil), how it created the world, etc., it gets much more complex, and there are probably already separate threads for each of those topics.

Now if you can't find my answer in the Image of God thread, I'll be happy to repeat it, once you try to support the science you so ignorantly posted about there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People readily forget or keep ignoring that religions might be about God, but any religion is not by itself, God.

No, I say, God is something else. This is obvious if religions weren't around back when we first invented mythologies; I would say there was little need to proselytise back then because most people accepted the myths. They didn't accept them because they didn't know better, or were stupid. Being stupid would most likely have been prejudicial to your survival.

Unlike today where you can actually boast about it, and be proud of how stupid and uninformed you are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By definition Atheists don't define God. Atheists don't need to. We don't believe a biblical God exists.

OTOH, Theists claim they "know" God, but no Theist ever can define God.
Your definition is ridiculous. God = Agency ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)

And God has all those human qualities? How quaint......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then maybe you shouldn't crow about nonsense like:

"p.s. I have given a definition of what you call God"
http://sciforums.com/goto/post?id=3640784#post-3640784​

Straw man (not God itself), and conflating my answer to a completely different OP (image of God). Weren't you the guy just complaining about posts in other threads?

"If you want to comment on a post in another thread with another subject, do so and don't try to create a smoke
screen in which to hide your own "doubts"."
http://sciforums.com/goto/post?id=3640784#post-3640784 ​

So you're a projecting hypocrite as well. You just keep dodging your dubious grasp of the science you tout, to avoid your own doubts, and doing exactly what you've complained about.

Again, you're just exposing your illiteracy of science. Apparently you don't even know that sociology is the study of human societies.

In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity. The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agency/​

Now if you say agency is a human quality, great. We agree that humans have free will.

 

Even if Humans have Agency which is debatable, does that necessarily have to be a property of God"?

Your claim begins with God has/is Agency. Prove it!

 

No, it doesn't. I just believe it does.

You can't actually prove beliefs. Too bad you can't recognize your own, even when you have your nose rubbed in your ignorance of the science you tout.

 

You can believe whatever you want. Just don't teach it in school.

Oh, I gladly admit I believe in science as the way to enlightenment and understanding. But belief in science is based on evidence. Belief in God is based on wishful thinking.

 

Not a teacher or administrator of any school. I don't even want or expect public schools to teach anything about religion.
That's the kind of nonsense lies you have to tell yourself when you can't manage to support, much less comprehend, the science you spout.

Belief in abiogenesis is not based on evidence, because we have yet to find any conclusive evidence of it. And attributing your confidence in conclusive evidence of other things to abiogenesis is unscientific blind faith. Otherwise you could support the science you ignorantly tried to foist as evidence of abiogenesis. Still waiting for you to even attempt that. My belief in God is based on my own reasoning and personal experience, and I'm honest enough to admit it.

 

That's a religiously inspired, fabricated lie you keep telling....
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7484
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7489
https://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html

Just as your rejection of abiogenesis, based on your own reasoning [actually lack thereof] is based on your agenda in ID beliefs.
And all this waste of time by you in trying to convince all us poor atheists, and lefties as to your flawed thinking, when it was as obvious as dog balls.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And, no one cares how any theist defines God.

Then, it turns into an endless maze of confusion, obscurity and intellectual honesty upon questioning the definitions validity.

 

Tell that to your religious friends, not me.

Well, people in Dover had to go to court to prevent religion from entering the school's science curriculum under the guise of Intelligent Design. Ever heard of the Kitzmiller v Dover trials?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Of course you would call this nonsense, because you are unwilling to acknowledge the insidious nature of religious influence on society.

I respect that, in fact I gladly admit that all religions have some positive moral messages . It's the science part, like "genesis" that is unscientific.

Clearly everything, including life in the universe started from some elementary particles (the table of elements), which by definition is abiogenesis. There can be no dispute. How can there be a living thing before creation of "life"? Is God a living thing???

The facts are not subject to debate or alternatives.
Once there was no life. Then, after a long time of chemical interactions, life emerged from the "soup". And a long time after that man arrived on the scene, a latecomer to the "theatre of life", after billions of other living things had already lived and died.

Until you can prove a living god exists or existed we must assume there never was one. This is the argument you use to try and debunk the fossil evidence; "but intermediate species are missing from the fossil record!"
At least in science there is a fossil record, whereas religion relies on the evidence of a "shroud of Turin" which is supposed to hold an image of Jesus, but even then does not prove anything about the existence of a god. Therre simply is no evidence of a supernatural entity of any kind. There is a scientific hypothesis of "possible panspermia", which only means that abiogenesis occurred somewhere else in the universe, but doe not in any way suggest a (supernatural) living god.

There is no evidence of a living, motivated god who created man via abiogenesis!
But it is written that "god made man from dust", right? That is abiogenesis!

Moreover, there is no fossil proof of Adam or Eve! How can you claim they ever existed if lack of fossil evidence is your professed standard for verification of historical truth?

What are you arguing about?

 

Theists, at least some and certainly one, point out belief is subjective which is true but in the same breath suggest that their belief is therefore no worse than a belief that our science is reliable which I can't see as being a reasonable conclusion for in the case of a theist their belief comes from heresay married to some personal experience they have had that has them concluding the heresay is valid and of course belief in science rests on much more reliable ground given it is reliant on tested models that make observable predictions ...and all this denial of abigenisis being unreliable because "science" has not created life in the lab ignores the understanding of the chemical processes and indeed the various experiments that fits the chemistry. Theists however must reject the notion simply because it is just one more hole in their bucket that is not doing much of a job holding their superstition from dripping slowly away.
As I have said the contest theists wish for can not be what they seriously expect will help them for they would put up the notion that an unevidenced god created a man by breathing life into a clay model against a growing assembly of facts solidly pointing to abiogenesis as not only possible but extremely probable..certainly much more probable than the story written by unknown authors, who did not know where the Sun went at night, that life was created by an unevidenced entity.

There is certainly a case however for man inventing this god and recording him in clay as we can tell from the surviving Sumerian clay tablets setting out the gods from whom the inventors of the current Western god found inspiration for that invention. It's not a secret it is history and recorded in writting on clay tablets.

Theists believe..I think we get that, but past belief they have nothing and yet we suffer them here trolling for god beating a drum with invisable skin.

They want to believe abiogenesis is false and their sky daddy made humans out of clay to be a superior probability, well let them for the reality is the superstition will die out in time, it may take another thousand years but it is losing its grip and as humans get access to better education the superstitious ones will ultimately give it all up as a bad idea.
Alex

 

With good cause.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me introduce you to the Inquisition's Creed which you may have missed in your adoration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Directorium Inquisitorum is Nicholas Eymerich's most prominent and enduring work, written in Latin and consisting of approximately 800 pages, which he had composed as early as 1376. Eymerich had written an earlier treatise on sorcery, perhaps as early as 1359, which he extensively reworked into the Directorium Inqusitorum. In compiling the book, Eymerich used many of the magic texts he had previously confiscated from accused sorcerers. It can also be considered as an assessment of a century and half of official Inquisition in the "albigensian" country.

Legacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorium_Inquisitorum

To wit,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

You asked for a comparison with Islamism? Not all that different, I must say....this voodoo crap is scary! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Especially when people die as a result. ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have posted this before, but it bears representation, because it is a compendium of three religions (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon) in one single book.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

Wow, you still have no clue what the science you cite actually says. None of that makes the leap from non-living to living. You know, the definition you cited for abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/abiogenesis-definition-theory-evidence.html​

I can only hope that you have registered there so you can learn that whole lesson.

"Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."
...
"Dr. Wolfenden established physical properties of the twenty amino acids, and we have found a link between those properties and the genetic code," Carter said. "That link suggests to us that there was a second, earlier code that made possible the peptide-RNA interactions necessary to launch a selection process that we can envision creating the first life on Earth."
...
He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html​

"Likely", "suggests", "envision", and "believe" are descriptions of hypothesis, not fact. Simple reading comprehension should really suffice to tell you that much. Everywhere they approach the leap from non-living to living, they use such qualified language.

But no doubt, you will keep preaching your blind faith, repeating the same dogma over and over again, hoping to convert the nonbelievers. Of course, then projecting that on people who aren't preaching at all and only sharing what they think. Differing beliefs are always threatening to a true believer, especially when they repeatedly demonstrate their complete lack of comprehension in their own underlying doctrine. And you don't even seem capable of understanding that I admit abiogenesis might be possible, thus making my belief falsifiable, and you admit no alternative to it, making yours not even vaguely scientific.

You're projecting, as I've not once told anyone what they should believe. I only say what I believe and try to straighten out your woeful misunderstanding of the science you tout. You've only to accept that a hypothesis is only a hypothesis and I have no further reason to criticize your belief. Too bad you don't seem to understand the basics of the scientific method. Wishful thinking is not science. Until demonstrated as fact, it's only a myth you tell yourself.

 

You posting in a thread about the definition of God would belie that.

Well, you definitely seem confused at any rate.

I don't know any religious people seeking to have religion taught in public schools.

And? Not my horse, not my race.

What's nonsense is being so threatened by something you believe to be myth and fantasy that you can't even bear to have a single statement about it read in class. Essentially just saying that there are other opinions. God forfend children learn some people think differently to others.

The Bible doesn't make scientific claims, because, duh, religion isn't science.

It's obviously trash reasoning to assume that because something exists and incorporates something else, that this something else must have caused the something. That's like saying since a car started from raw metal, the metal must have caused the car.

How can there be a living cell before life exists? Some unexplained alchemy and poof, there it is?
God is not a "thing". It's the source of life, that can create things and imbue them with that life.

You obviously don't comprehend the difference between fact and hypothesis. Seriously, learn the basics of science already, instead of just parroting what someone tells you so you can pretend you're smart. I'm sure you're plenty smart without all that pretense. You just need to exercise your intellect a bit.

Or just keep telling yourself your own little Genesis myth^.

What you choose to believe if fine with me, and I agree, you have no compelling reason to believe anything without evidence. Too bad you're not intellectually honest enough to admit that of your own beliefs.

I don't know any Christians who believe the Shroud of Turin is legitimately Jesus, nor does the Catholic church affirm it is. Again, I agree, we have no evidence that would compel belief. No one here is trying to convince you of anything, so I don't know why you act as if your beliefs are being threatened. Accepting abiogeneis is hypothesis does not make theism true. I accept that abiogeneis may be true, because it's intellectually honest to allow something that could possibly prove my belief wrong.

That is so desperate to try co-opting religion to affirm your beliefs. There are plenty of bodies, made from "dust", lying in morgues without any life at all. Why don't they have life? Maybe because life is something beyond just a mixture of chemicals.

LOL! I've already said that I don't think Genesis is literal, hence Adam and Eve never existed.

You're arguing some imagined threat to your beliefs, that is trying to convince you of something and believes the Bible is literal. Since that's not me, you're apparently arguing yourself. That can happen when you're avoiding your own doubts.

You're going to have to work a lot harder if you really want to break the record for a run-on sentence.

No one compared anything at all to "a belief that our science is reliable". I agree. I also believe that our science is remarkably reliable. Hence that's an ignorant or lazy straw man that obscures the real argument. "Reliable science" is that which has already been demonstrated to be an accurate portrayal of our universe. Hypotheses are not "reliable science" because we simply cannot rely on any hypothesis to be true. That's the defining factor that makes them hypotheses. Science defines them as such for the express reason that they entail significant unknowns. If you can do the mental gymnastics to equate the unknown to the reliable, that sounds like a personal problem.

Except that I admit abiogenesis might have happened, because it's intellectually honest to allow some possibility that you may be wrong and that your beliefs could be falsified. Too bad true believers in scientism can't say the same.

"Contest"? Is that what you think this is?
Where one side doesn't even ask you to believe what they say and admit the other may be correct, and the other denies any alternative and insists that others believe as they do. Sounds like the only contest is with your own doubts.

So threatened that you can't even bear to allow others to simply tell you want they believe. That's sad.

Your posts in the religion subforum belie that you truly believe that.

 

Wow, you believe you were persecuted by the Inquisition? Cheese has officially slid off your cracker.

Now be intellectually honest and compare modern day Christianity to Islam. You know, instead of the 15th century Catholic church.

 

Wow!!! So similar pretentious false rhetoric we often see spouted by Trump....talk about two peas in a pod.

Yes, and we have plenty of evidence pointing to abiogenesis, along of course being the only scientific answer available, along with the fact that any other non scientific answer is simply handed down myth with no evidence.

Wow!! so much navel gazing there I'm not sure where to start. The reality sonny is this....it is you, despite your overly pretentious denial, that has decided to come to a science forum preaching fire and brimstone, misinterpreting and misrepresenting science, and all the while pretending to adhere to it. I don't care about your beliefs, really I don't, but go preach your nonsense and delusions in a religious forum, and stop telling lies here. OK?

Yeah, yeah, I know...you tell that to everyone. Your agenda and baggage have you totally blinkered to the reality of science, the scientific method and the evidence available.
I'll just touch on your final rhetorical nonsense regarding what you see as myth. I'll put down your constant methodology of accusations and false claims against science and the available evidence, by turning your own short comings against science, as just another attempt at pleasing your overlords, and re-enforcing your own psychotic delusions.
As I mentioned before to someone, I suppose we can be rather thankful, that at least your nonsense, navel gazing and general abhorrent attitudes are confined to the religious and political fringes of the forum, and away from the sciences.

 

It is likely there will be an accident, texting while driving suggests a careless attitude, one can envision hitting any number of obstacles, which I believe would end badly for the driver.

 

Not really I can write a page long sentence with no trouble even when trying to be brief.

What is wrong with straw men so often they are the fearless soldiers that smash through the opponents arguements that they try to hide from public scrutiny...maybe I will sent some straw women...hang on you calling my straw persons straw men is sexist. From now on please show some respect and say straw persons.

I never noticed but I take that as a total victory over your early total rejection of solid science.

Absolutely a contest between the good of rational thinking against the evil that can be grouped loosely with the term religion.

I am not for a moment interested in their delusional waffle other than to record it to present as evidence of the existence of undesirable superstitious people who should go on the list. And no I can't tell you if you are on the list.

I won't disagree but only because I don't have the time ... on a serious note all I would like to see is that religion becomes better and drops the nonsense, gets rid of the con men and develops into something beyond ridicule that makes no comment on creation or the possibility of an entity involved in or capable of creation, something that can boast honesty and kindness as critical and not make false statements about an unevidenced after existence involving bliss or torment.
Alex