Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

Oh, you mean this roundly refuted post that you haven't bothered to try defending at all: http://sciforums.com/threads/are-we-made-in-gods-image.163113/page-18#post-3640400
As detailed there, not compelling because you obviously lack the basic scientific understanding necessary. So your accusation of "wishful thinking" is demonstrably a projection of your own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you have things mixed up.

It is the Hameroff-Penrose ORCH OR hypothesis that is currently being debated, but that is about consciousness.

When it comes to abiogenesis, Robert Hazen is usually consulted in any debates on abiogenesis as the leading "expert" on early evolving biochemistry and the most chemically efficient self-formation of complex biological patterns.
Watch the video of his Carnegie lecture!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Weren't you supposed to keep the microtubules in your own thread?

 

For someone so keen to accuse others of raising straw men and being intellectually dishonest, Vociferous, you do raise enough of your own, and suffer your own share of dishonesty....

No, it's an implication of what you said:
To remind you:

You then clarified that you were speaking about beliefs lacking objectively compelling evidence, and that the equal footing was with regard to being "not knowledge".
So how is this different to the tautology of "not knowledge is not knowledge"?
And as such, if it is not known how X was caused, then both the belief it was A and the belief it was B are on equal footing in that those beliefs are "not knowledge". With me so far?
Good. Now, if A is possible and B is impossible, you end up with the possible and impossible being on equal footing. Did you manage to follow that?
So, now, please pray tell how it is a straw man for me to say that you have simply stated a tautology that puts the possible and impossible on equal footing?

So either you are being intellectually dishonest in your dismissal of it as a strawman, or you are demonstrating intellectual deficiency in your ability to follow the implications of what you said.

Straw man (oh, the irony) on your part, Vociferous: I have not compared unicorns to theism. In my posts to you on this I have not once (until just then) even mentioned theism. So where have you got this little gem of a strawman from?

Nothing faulty about the analogies. Nothing about them are a straw man, either.

Have I said otherwise? You said that I hadn't given thought to how I justify my assumption: I had. Whether that is subjective or not is irrelevant. But, oh, I guess you're just setting up yet another ironic straw-man, right?

Sure - and lots of people undoubtedly think gravity is subjective.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that not everything is objective? Sure - noone has said otherwise. Is it that everything is subjective? If so, pointing to something subjective isn't going to show how everything is. Is it that there is both the objective and subjective? Well, pointing to something subjective doesn't really address that. So, other than rambling, what point are you actually trying to make?

Where have I said otherwise? I simply said that it is reasonable to assume that, if we can function reasonably, that the world matches what we think about it. Clearly, if two similarly well functioning people have different views on a matter (e.g. politics, beauty etc), those differences show that those views are subjective. But again, where have I said otherwise?

I haven't dismissed anything - so yet another of your ironic strawmen. (And given that you are so ready to accuse others of raising strawmen, yours really can only be deemed "ironic strawmen").

And more (ironic) intellectual dishonesty from you, Vociferous. Or maybe not dishonest but just another sign of your intellectual deficiency... you tell me which it is:
Your accusation of me being "literal and obtuse" was, for anyone following the conversation closely enough, clearly referencing me answering "no" to your question of whether we "actually know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is"? You then created your ironic strawman by using that answer to claim I was being contradictory. I showed how I wasn't, because you clearly hadn't considered adequately the question you had asked. Hence you called me "literal and obtuse".
This had nothing to do with those matters that "people like Yaz readily comprehend". Hence your intellectual dishonesty in trying to link the two.

Alternatively, as said, you are not being dishonest but simply demonstrating intellectual deficiency in linking the two.

No faulty comparison, and no straw man from me, Vociferous, as set out for you above.

And there we are back to your own ironic straw man.

No straw man, Vociferous, and any further attempt by you to dismiss the point as such will be seen as further clear evidence of your intellectually dishonesty in the matter, given that I don't believe you are that intellectually deficient.

 

LOL, under what rock did you crawl from with that little piece of nonsense? Did you just pull that out of your ass or are you just a slow learner?

Hazen has NOTHING to do with MT. He is an expert on abiogenesis, which is a propos to the OP.

Bye Kristo, I lost all respect for you from just one comment. Isn't that precious?

 

Yawn. You can obviously have this little straw man argument without me. Go right ahead. Unless...maybe you want to ask questions (or just accept clarification) rather than make shit up.

 

So you can't follow the implications of what you say? Fair enough, then it's simple intellectual deficiency, rather than dishonesty, on your part. Unless, of course, you're lying just to avoid the issue, and then we're back to you being dishonest.
So now we've got that out of the way...

Ah, yes, is that clarification that is required due to your inability to communicate effectively in the first place, only for you to then accuse one of being "literal and obtuse"?
Or is it "clarification" you feel you need to give in an effort to change your position in the light of criticism?

Either way, it's clear there's no discussion to be had with you. Criticise your position and one is simply accused of making shit up.
(The irony is strong with this one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
Just a shame you can't follow the implications of your own position.

 

No, I responded to you talking explicitly about abiogenesis, no matter whatever other nonsense you're trying to interject (likely from some unrelated thread I haven't even bothered to read).

Again, I've roundly refuted all the nonsense you've posted so far on the subject: http://sciforums.com/threads/are-we-made-in-gods-image.163113/page-18#post-3640400
You're appeals to authority, which you obviously don't comprehend yourself, are just sad.

 

Ho-hum. Some people like to take one little sentence out of context and go on for pages about whatever they imagine it "actually says". LOL!

 

Ho-hum. Some people like to divert from comprehending the actual implications of what they say, and go on for pages in denial, doing whatever they can to avoid facing them, suffocating their own posts with irony and hypocrisy. LOL!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have refuted nothing. The links I provided speak abour "hard facts" and what that implies.
You admit you do not watch or read them, yet you have the gall to make a judgement about my judgement .

Beating your chest doesn't make you a scientist, it makes you just a gorilla.

 

No, your links talk about science that is obviously and demonstrable over your head, and that's why I've had to explain it to you. Otherwise, you could make some attempt to refute what I've said or support your own arguments. You can't, because you just keep offering living organisms as evidence for life from the inanimate. That's not how science works, and you'd know that if you understood anything about scientific methodology at all.

So of course, you're only option is to not reply to the facts I've taught you and just do these weak little insults. Oh, and the lies about anyone saying they don't read or watch your links. I've obviously read/watched enough to refute your ignorance, complete with time codes and quotes: http://sciforums.com/threads/are-we-made-in-gods-image.163113/page-18#post-3640400

But it's clear you're just wasting my time with your ignorance.

 

While obviously we have a religiously fanatical bigoted redneck at work here, it should be said that modern science and cosmology have solved much of the mystery of the universe around us, and the ancient derived "god being the causer of everything is now defunct and erased by the onset of knowledge. That which our bigoted friend simply ignores.
Instead they substitute and smother the facts of the finality of death, with faked mythical creationists driven views, requiring some imaginary magical sky daddy, and continues with his pretentious pious lunacies driven by this magical sky daddy.

In summing, and in my opinion at least, this continued ranting, raving, lying, misinterpretations etc, have reached the stage where lunacy can now be applied.

 

Actually I am wasting my time with trying to change your obviously conditioned world view and religious zealotry. The reason I do this, is because I have had the experience of being a victim of religious persecution by religious zealots, you know the dangerous "soldiers of God". Can you say the same?

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/zealotry

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".

Impress me with your vast knowledge and give me a scientifically supportable "Definition of God" and "Why we are made in God's image". The smug hubris of your mental masturbation posted in both threads is astounding. And has been the cause of death of millions of people who did not believe "as they were told to believe" .

If you cannot do that you may want to tone down your offensive rhetoric and perhaps pay attention (maybe even read) to what other people post.

 

(red highlight mine).

And you are not appealing to authority, which you obviously do not comprehend yourself ?

Instead of attempting to fathom my knowledge and explain something to me which you do not understand, put up or shut up about a definition of God and why humans are made in God's Image?

Enough beating around the bush. Tell me how God made a burning bush while making thunderous words and what it is he said, in what language.

Talking about naivete.......you're just pitiful.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.s. I have given a definition of what you call God. Can you do better? Prove it!

 

Careful you will get drawn in and all you will do is waste your time...he has a happy knack of being frustrating and I think that may be by design.
Alex

 

(red highlight mine).

I doubt that spelling error was by design......that would be much too subtle......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sir think you are meaning fenestrated

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Better than being castrated.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!