A possibly new perspective on this thing that we know as God.

[Deesse23]

Just to be clear, i havent been exposed to such high grade BS in my life until now, this person is for real, no troll, he/she really believes the complete nonsensical word salad he/she is spreading here? How common are such folks?

I am not joking, this is shocking, how gullible, deluded and ignorant people can be.

[Pat Mustard]

The format of the forum is starting to get a little confusing.

Why, because you've never used an internet forum before?

Seious question here, how much of your annual income are you paying to your religious leaders?

[The Grand Nudger]

The bits of the faith our new friend has shared aren't really the loopy parts. This is the soft intro.

[Deesse23]

The bits of the faith our new friend has shared aren't really the loopy parts.  This is the soft intro.

Seriously?
I mean, seriously? 

[EgoDeath]

I think I've said enough.

You can go back on post, most things you said I touched on.

Well, it's unfortunate. I was hoping to help you see the nature of your arguments... if you want to call them that. It's the cyclical nature that's damn near necessary for all religious beliefs of this kind.

A simple example:

Person A: I believe god is real because it says so in the bible.

Person B: Well, how do you know what you read in the bible is true?

Person A: Because God tells us that the bible is his true word.

Person B: Well, how do you know that to be true?

Person A: Because it says so in the Bible.

---

This, of course, is nothing new. And plenty of philosophers and religious thinkers have constructed insanely convoluted "logical proofs" and other arguments for god's existence... and a lot of them sound very wordy and impressive, if you're not really listening. But when you boil these things down, it all generally comes down to this sort of cyclical belief.

I hope you understand what I mean, or that I've explained myself properly.

[Rahn127]

Unity, I am going to make two statements and then demonstrate the truth of one of them.

We'll start with three objects. A 2x4 piece of wood, a metal hand saw and a piece of fruit (an apple)

Statements
1. I can use a hand saw to cut a 2x4 piece of wood in half.
2. I can use an apple to cut a 2x4 piece of wood in half.

I can demonstrate the truth of statement #1 by using the saw to cut the 2x4 in half.
I cannot demonstrate statement #2 because it is not true. I cannot use an apple to cut a 2x4 in half.

Now let's say that I make the statement that the hand saw is divine.
How do I demonstrate that ?

Does it's ability to cut a 2x4 in half demonstrate divinity ?
If a god can cut a 2x4 in half, then doesn't that make the saw divine ?
It's doing something that a god can do right ?

And if a god can do anything, then doesn't that make everything divine ?
And if everything is divine then the word divine really has no meaning in a world that doesn't have any gods in it.
It's just some extra imaginary paint added onto an existent object without any need to.

Or maybe, just maybe......
a saw demonstrates that a strong material with a certain shape can chip away small pieces of wood from a 2x4 in a cutting motion.

And that's it.
That's all it does.

[Belacqua]

Unity, I am going to make two statements and then demonstrate the truth of one of them.

We'll start with three objects. A 2x4 piece of wood, a metal hand saw and a piece of fruit (an apple)

Statements
1. I can use a hand saw to cut a 2x4 piece of wood in half.
2. I can use an apple to cut a 2x4 piece of wood in half.

I can demonstrate the truth of statement #1 by using the saw to cut the 2x4 in half.
I cannot demonstrate statement #2 because it is not true. I cannot use an apple to cut a 2x4 in half.

Right. Hand saws were made to cut wood. Natural selection selected for apples because they do other things. Apples weren't selected for in order to cut wood. So far so good.

Now let's say that I make the statement that the hand saw is divine.

How do I demonstrate that ?

First, we'd need a useful definition of the word "divine."

Does it's ability to cut a 2x4 in half demonstrate divinity ?

That depends on the definition of "divine," but according to common definitions, no.

If a god can cut a 2x4 in half, then doesn't that make the saw divine ?

No.

It's doing something that a god can do right ?

Maybe. It depends on your definition of "god," or "omnipotent," etc. A lot of people would say that god wouldn't be bothered to cut wood. But if it is part of his nature, he would weave into the fabric of the universe people's goals, and their goals could be brought about in part by cutting wood, and therefore the desire to cut wood would arise. And then the people would invent saws and use them to cut wood. 

And if a god can do anything, then doesn't that make everything divine ?

I don't see how that follows at all. If a god could cut wood, but a beaver did it instead, how does that make the beaver divine? If a god could do something but doesn't, why is that thing always divine?

And if everything is divine then the word divine really has no meaning in a world that doesn't have any gods in it.
It's just some extra imaginary paint added onto an existent object without any need to.

First we'd have to demonstrate that everything is divine, and in what way. If god is what holds the world and its laws in existence, as many religious people believe, then the world does depend in some way on the divine. But whether that means everything IS divine or not would require further argument. 

You're right that if the world doesn't have a god or gods, then the word "divine" would have no meaning. So we'd need to establish that. Whether the concept is an unnecessary addition or a metaphysical necessity would require strong arguments.

Or maybe, just maybe......
a saw demonstrates that a strong material with a certain shape can chip away small pieces of wood from a 2x4 in a cutting motion.

And that's it.
That's all it does.

In and of itself, that is all a saw demonstrates. So I'd say you have successfully argued that the existence of saws is not in itself sufficient to prove the existence of God.

[Rahn127]

Unity claimed that humans were divine and at least one person asked if this could be demonstrated.

Bel, the post was made to Unity, because Unity did not know what the word demonstrate meant.

I was giving an example.