Ha ha ha ha...Too funny.

(August 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well 'God' is the first cause. The prime mover. He is potentiality. Everything that started was from him, otherwise we are saying something preceeds God, which then disproves God.

So everything is fashioned from his own body parts.

So then is your concept of God conscious? If not, then why call it 'God'? Is not saying "first cause" good enough?

...oh my goodness I think I'm beginning to understand fr0d0...

fr0do: You're personifying this cause. Why?

Anthropomorphizing is the crux of any man-made God.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're making the same point as me Locke, you just didn't work that out yet.

Are you condemning the 'religious' part of faith? Because I'm with you there. Buit what has that to do with what I'm saying, other than show your lack of understanding of what we're talking about?

You seem to have a problem with your own concept of knowledge, which I see you struggling to align with what is commonly accepted. I think that's where your confusion arises.

I went back and read your post again.. I think I was reading it differently than you intended.

I still don't know where you got that nature is God.. but I thought you were also arguing that anyone who tests their faith against evidence is therefore showing that their faith must be put to the test, and in so doing is proving that it isn't faith in God, but faith in knowledge instead, and therefore has left a solid foundation.
So basically I thought you were condemning anything but blind, untested faith.

(August 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: So then is your concept of God conscious? If not, then why call it 'God'? Is not saying "first cause" good enough?

...oh my goodness I think I'm beginning to understand fr0d0...

uh oh... calls in the cleansing team

You could take this idea on its own, and that wouldn't constitute 'God'. Just a tiny part. So yeah, first cause cuts it

---

(August 9, 2013 at 4:56 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: fr0do: You're personifying this cause. Why?

Because I see it as part of something bigger, and the leading question was about micro justifications. Otherwise no need.

A guy called in to "The Atheist Experience" show and tried to explain that nature should be called "God" for the very same reasons you were postulating. The hosts brought up a good point that doing so is admirable, but the word "God" also comes with a lot of baggage. I assume you accept this baggage, fr0d0?

(August 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm)Locke Wrote: So basically I thought you were condemning anything but blind, untested faith.

No not at all. I don't understand how there could be such a thing.

/ok atheists you can put the popcorn away now

---

(August 9, 2013 at 5:11 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I assume you accept this baggage, fr0d0?

No none!

Yeah yeah I'm apologising for it all of the time. Thanks for bringing that up. Again! :p

(August 9, 2013 at 5:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah yeah I'm apologising for it all of the time. Thanks for bringing that up. Again! :p

Any time.

Boo!

---

With regards to the putting away of the popcorn.

---

Did we just become best friends???