(January 17, 2010 at 11:46 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:

Quote:This is illogical, as how can one derive the attributes of a thing without first observing the thing being defined?

Did you write this? How can you argue aginst something when you won't define what you are argueing against.

Also, no need to walk around the discussion.

I'm not arguing against anything, I'm making an intellectual inquiry. I think it is vital to keep people thinking.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am)Knight Wrote:

Quote:OK you're throwing in the towel Knight. It does seem you have no argument, and you admit to saying the same thing over and over.

I most certainly am not throwing in the towel, but nice try! I only have to repeat myself because YOU repeat yourself.

Sorry I thought you said you weren't going to discuss this any further:

Knight Wrote:I'm tired of going in circles so it is time to put on a halt.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am)Knight Wrote:

Quote:Nothing exists that isn't observable? Are you gnostic about this? You are categorically saying that God cannot exist?

That's not what I said Frodo, nor is it anywhere close to what I meant. You cannot say if it does or does not exist if you cannot observe it! It is equivalent to the unicorn example I provided. Sure, it is possible that the unicorn exists, but the way I currently have it defined, it would be futile to discuss whether it exists or not. Same with your God. It is futile to give it any attributes without observing it.

I'm sorry you feel the need to get defensive - I simply wanted to clear up that point. Thankyou for doing so.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am)Knight Wrote:

Quote: See the vast majority of us here don't agree with that. We all think you can't know. And if you can't know either, how can you be so bold as to make this claim? I would suggest that logically, you cannot. Your position is untenable.

You are a slimy theist, aren't you? Throwing in straw mans seems to be second nature to you. Thankfully I said nothing of the sort. I've been saying all along you cannot know. You're the one who believes because you claim to know something about God. You have claimed several times:

Insulting is a fallacy did you know?

What we're missing here of course is any first attempt to describe God. So we're talking pure theory. No one can ever know one way or the other.. that's sorta a core point... as I've already said. I've also intimated directly above that I cannot know. I asked you if you were different to the rest of us and actually 'knew'. It turns out that you say you don't. Good.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am)Knight Wrote:

Quote:This is how God is defined and it clearly is effective in formulating an idea of what God is.

Referring to telling us what God is not. For not being able to know, you sure make a lot of claims that suggest you know.

I think you confuse 'knowing everything' with knowing something. Depending on our starting position, we can formulate attributes that logically fit our construct. The entity of God as defined over the entirety of human history has concluded thus far the omnimax attributes. This conclusion is logically coherent. You don't have to go with that. You can devise any or no construct of your own and I have no problem with you doing that. What I do object to is you making categorical claims that simply don't hold water. You cannot know, and neither can I.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am)Knight Wrote:

Quote:The "observable" here doesn't include the physically observable but intellectual observance of logical thought. You require God to be a physical entity when God isn't a physical entity. Yes you're going to fail with that.

You have now finally declared that God is not physical. It took you long enough. Now you're at least moving in some direction!

Not so. In post #42 I refered to God as having a transcendental nature.

God is not entirely physical. He is in his creation which is necessarily part of him.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:12 am)Knight Wrote: Tell me, how does a nonphysical being interact with the universe? Then, how do you know? How do you know there is such a nonphysical being to begin with? You are just guessing, but you refuse to admit it.

How do you not know? Answer: you don't.

If he doesn't not know then are you claiming that he does?

Fr0d0.... please explain how you can validly evince anything by evincing what it is not before you've evinced what it is!

EvF

This is not about making clear to others what god is, but this is the Way of the Dodger. fr0d0 evidently more than anything cherishes the elusiveness of his personal god and is prepared to sacrifice logic for it. The god of fr0d0 is not tangible, not detectable, not provable, not verifiable, not falsifiable. Belief without any evidence or clue whatsoever is random and meaningless yet this is what he's trying to sell. My guess is that fr0d0 himself does not belief in a god since he cannot name one characteristic feature that defines him. It's a classic case of holding on to a dream in spite of knowing better. A strange battle between hope and reason.

You crazy diamond Evie

And what's with the new "evinice" word??

Say you had a sand pit with an impression in it, and the object that made the impression was missing. In this instance, couldn't you know or have a good idea of what made the impression without it actually being there? We're not talking about 'evidencing' something anyway. We're talking about working out 'something' of the entity in question.

Do you think there are things we can call "not God" Evie? Do you agree this is possible?

---

(January 17, 2010 at 4:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: This is not about making clear to others what god is, but this is the Way of the Dodger. fr0d0 evidently more than anything cherishes the elusiveness of his personal god and is prepared to sacrifice logic for it. The god of fr0d0 is not tangible, not detectable, not provable, not verifiable, not falsifiable. Belief without any evidence or clue whatsoever is random and meaningless yet this is what he's trying to sell. My guess is that fr0d0 himself does not believe in a god since he cannot name one characteristic feature that defines him. It's a classic case of holding on to a dream in spite of knowing better. A strange battle between hope and reason.

You're such a shit Rabbit. Nice mindless rep too VOID.

I'm not volunteering my interpretation as that's not relevant here. You are free to make up your own metaphysical diversion. With VOID it's future technology. With you it's your own flavour of spirituality.

You know very well what we're talking about here, yet you volunteer this dog shit for opinion. Be a sweetie and clear up after yourself.

(January 17, 2010 at 4:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You crazy diamond Evie

And what's with the new "evinice" word??

Say you had a sand pit with an impression in it, and the object that made the impression was missing. In this instance, couldn't you know or have a good idea of what made the impression without it actually being there? We're not talking about 'evidencing' something anyway. We're talking about working out 'something' of the entity in question.

In the case of the analogy you would have many physical attributes of the print to relate to the thing that left the print, such as the depth, width, length, area, contours etc - Can you name a single case where god has left a print?

Quote:

(January 17, 2010 at 4:37 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: This is not about making clear to others what god is, but this is the Way of the Dodger. fr0d0 evidently more than anything cherishes the elusiveness of his personal god and is prepared to sacrifice logic for it. The god of fr0d0 is not tangible, not detectable, not provable, not verifiable, not falsifiable. Belief without any evidence or clue whatsoever is random and meaningless yet this is what he's trying to sell. My guess is that fr0d0 himself does not believe in a god since he cannot name one characteristic feature that defines him. It's a classic case of holding on to a dream in spite of knowing better. A strange battle between hope and reason.

You're such a shit Rabbit. Nice mindless rep too VOID.

Not mindless, i find he summed up your tactics quite well.

Quote:I'm not volunteering my interpretation as that's not relevant here. You are free to make up your own metaphysical diversion. With VOID it's future technology. With you it's your own flavour of spirituality.

Metaphysical diversion? There is nothing metaphysical about technology.

Quote:You know very well what we're talking about here, yet you volunteer this dog shit for opinion. Be a sweetie and clear up after yourself.

Better than offering nothing but ambiguity.

(January 17, 2010 at 4:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're such a shit Rabbit.

Just remember that god is in every shit you step in fr0d0.

fr0d0 Wrote:I'm not volunteering my interpretation as that's not relevant here.

My dear fr0d0, if anything is clear after 75 posts in this thread is that you're not relevant in this thread since you give no definition whatsoever.

fr0d0 Wrote:You are free to make up your own metaphysical diversion.

Yes we all are. But instead of dodging, not-defining, escaping verification, escaping falsifiability, illogic, you can always demand from me that I give non-evading answers to my opinion.

fr0d0 Wrote:With VOID it's future technology. With you it's your own flavour of spirituality.

Well, you didn't get that exactly right then. It's nothing metaphyiscal, rather emotional. I'm just an emotional guy you see, in real life that is.

fr0d0 Wrote:You know very well what we're talking about here, yet you volunteer this dog shit for opinion. Be a sweetie and clear up after yourself.

Well, well, wipe your tears now dear. I think you're getting emotional yourself now about the loss this night of your cherished divine virtual friend without attributes. I'll drink one on you tonight to support you in your loss.

Quote:Sorry I thought you said you weren't going to discuss this any further:

Nope. I said:

Quote:I'm tired of going in circles so it is time to put on a halt.

Simply halt the circular discussion to move forward.

From this point forward all meaningless comments such as the above in this post shall cease. I will ignore them if you continue to post them.

Quote:I think you confuse 'knowing everything' with knowing something.

No, I don't think I do sir. You know something about God...didn't you yourself just say:

frodo Wrote:You cannot know, and neither can I.

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Then everything becomes even more interesting when you say:

Quote:God is not entirely physical. He is in his creation which is necessarily part of him.

If he is partly physical, how can you determine that this physical part is actually of God? If he is "not entirely physical" that means part of him is, in which case observing him should not be a problem.

Again you assume that God is in its creation (you also assume God is a man by the consistent use of "his/him" but that is an aside...it is still rather annoying though, sorry)...what about the possibility that, for argument's sake, there is a God that just "doesn't give a shit," in the words of George Carlin. You automatically dismiss the deist position. There is a more fundamental problem with what you said, though, and it is in brackets below...but we can save that for another discussion momentarily.

*For the start of a new thread*
[Can you explain how you know it is in us and we are part of it? Did God give us his genes? You need to explain this whole creation topic (though not here). I shall start another thread sometime today presenting this new challenge. ]

Quote:How do you not know? Answer: you don't.

What is there to not know, and how do you know?

(January 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm)Knight Wrote:

Quote:Sorry I thought you said you weren't going to discuss this any further:

Nope. I said:

Quote:I'm tired of going in circles so it is time to put on a halt.

Simply halt the circular discussion to move forward.

Yes, I meant with me.

(January 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm)Knight Wrote: From this point forward all meaningless comments such as the above in this post shall cease. I will ignore them if you continue to post them.

Good. That's fine by me.

(January 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm)Knight Wrote:

Quote:I think you confuse 'knowing everything' with knowing something.

No, I don't think I do sir. You know something about God...didn't you yourself just say:

frodo Wrote:You cannot know, and neither can I.

Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Then everything becomes even more interesting when you say:

Quote:God is not entirely physical. He is in his creation which is necessarily part of him.

I'm sorry, I meant to say there "God is not entirely non temporal" ...which matches what else I was saying there.

To reiterate: we cannot know fully, but we can know in part. I might not be able to know if at any point you become God, but I can know if your acts fall in line with a notion of God.

(January 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm)Knight Wrote: If he is partly physical, how can you determine that this physical part is actually of God? If he is "not entirely physical" that means part of him is, in which case observing him should not be a problem.

Indeed it shouldn't be a problem. God is in his whole creation. You are made up of God. This entire physical reality is. So you just have to observe reality to observe the physical incarnation of God.

This is of course given a particular assumption, and you are not required to adopt that assumption. You can assume something else, or nothing.

(January 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm)Knight Wrote: Again you assume that God is in its creation (you also assume God is a man by the consistent use of "his/him" but that is an aside...it is still rather annoying though, sorry)...what about the possibility that, for argument's sake, there is a God that just "doesn't give a shit," in the words of George Carlin. You automatically dismiss the deist position. There is a more fundamental problem with what you said, though, and it is in brackets below...but we can save that for another discussion momentarily.

"Him" is a conventional address. I couldn't give a rats ass but use the convention anyway. We don't need to complicate things further I think.

God "not giving a shit" wouldn't be consistent with a coherent logical model of God. It's really that simple.

(January 17, 2010 at 8:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God is in his whole creation. You are made up of God. This entire physical reality is. So you just have to observe reality to observe the physical incarnation of God.

This is of course given a particular assumption

And can you verify that assumption in any way or do you just believe it for the convenient carte blanche that accompanies it?