(January 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'll define God as "love", I'll define God as "any one of us", I'll define God as "bacon", and I'll define God as "good".  Since God is "everything", that works, right?

So, my statement is "God Gods God, because God says God is God."

I love bacon, because God says bacon is good.

So you defined God hypothetically speaking.  Now what does love do?  Bacon: What can it do to prove that it is worthy to be god? Human: What can humans do to prove they are god? What does a hunk of metal like statue of Buddha to prove to be worthy of worship? 

None of these things including humans can do anything that is impressive so therefore not remotely near a god or worthy of anyone's time as a god.

Yeah, but bacon is real. That makes it infinitely more worshipable than any god humans have dreamed up.

Nice necropost, BTW.

I still miss frodo.

(October 18, 2015 at 8:11 pm)Blondie Wrote:

(January 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'll define God as "love", I'll define God as "any one of us", I'll define God as "bacon", and I'll define God as "good".  Since God is "everything", that works, right?

So, my statement is "God Gods God, because God says God is God."

I love bacon, because God says bacon is good.

So you defined God hypothetically speaking.  Now what does love do?  Bacon: What can it do to prove that it is worthy to be god? Human: What can humans do to prove they are god? What does a hunk of metal like statue of Buddha to prove to be worthy of worship? 

None of these things including humans can do anything that is impressive so therefore not remotely near a god or worthy of anyone's time as a god.

Have you ever had bacon? the stuffs amazing.

What evidence is there that 'God' is by default 'impressive'?

To date humans have done things that eclipse the impressiveness of anything any 'God' has ever been evidenced to have done.

To the OP, there was a poster once on af.com who posited that her God was rain, and that its existence was self-evident and impressive. You can't argue with that as evidence because, well, rain does exist and it is impressive in what it can do. However, it was a leap too far to conclude that it was a 'god' rather than just water and the odd other chemical included within it without something more compelling that 'it's a/my God'.

People who posit a deity also are unable to get around the issue of a being that hypothetically is proven to exist with near infinite power but which isn't a God (eg. The Q for Star Trek). But that's another hurdle to jump.

(October 19, 2015 at 4:42 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 8:11 pm)Blondie Wrote: So you defined God hypothetically speaking.  Now what does love do?  Bacon: What can it do to prove that it is worthy to be god? Human: What can humans do to prove they are god? What does a hunk of metal like statue of Buddha to prove to be worthy of worship? 

None of these things including humans can do anything that is impressive so therefore not remotely near a god or worthy of anyone's time as a god.

Have you ever had bacon? the stuffs amazing.

Yes, bacon is awesome. Gotta love BLT's.

Evidence for a first cause would do nothing for a god.

Labeling something as a "god" will do nothing for a god either.

Pantheism annoys me more than it used to. And I always found it at least a bit annoying.