(March 11, 2017 at 2:00 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 11:04 pm)irontiger Wrote: If I state the universe is God and we can verify the universe objectively, which part you don't agree with ?
Do you feel God has to be some super natural being outside the universe or inside the universe?
What if it just a being that we live in?
Is this something you don't want to accept? By using the word God does it hinder you in accepting this universe is God?
If I state the universe is God and we can verify the universe objectively, which part you don't agree with? As I already mentioned earlier, stating that the universe is God is meaningless, but I will also reject it as false. God by definition is a deity, and deities exist independently of the universe. If you cannot agree on common definitions, and instead define God the way you want, then we are no longer discussing a deity.
But let's grant your definition. The universe is in fact God. Can you please demonstrate this claim, instead of coming up with fancy word salad? I think you can't, because the claim cannot even be demonstrated in principle. Far from having any explanatory power, we literally have nothing to work with. It's like telling you that your television is actually God revealing to you.
Do you feel God has to be some super natural being outside the universe or inside the universe?
If he isn't supernatural, he isn't God. Deities are supernatural by definition.
What if it just a being that we live in?
Can you demonstrate that this is true?
Is this something you don't want to accept? By using the word God does it hinder you in accepting this universe is God?
It's not that I do not want to accept it. I just don't find this claim convincing at all for the reasons I already stated.
It seems to me you are sticking with an out dated definition then rejecting it. There is no reason that the universe can't be "alive" while also not be a 'god' by our definition.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
