Anyone here a Category 7?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, like I said...there are many positions.  I'm marking you down as a 6/7 on your own name though.  

Moving along..isn't the question "does a supercluster of galaxies have free will/is there more power in the supercluster of galaxies than any god?" also a wrong question, when it comes to whether or not it's a god?  How about "does it have agency or cognizance?".....?

If you feel comfortable using the term god for the cosmos....couldn't I also define a god as a hotdog?  If we both, then, on the basis of our definitions..conclude that gods certainly exist, have we said anything non-trivial about gods..?

*Puts on pantheist's cap*
God is the hotdog, yes. But not just the hotdog; everything else, too. You can refer to a post I made in the troll thread "The ontological disproof of God" for further details on that. But I don't see what your issue is there. It's pretty simple. Nothing is not God. In response to your other remark: I never concluded (or began to conclude) that anything certainly existed. Certainty is for you 7's and 1's.

Than the term god is rendered meaningless. The term certainty may also be meaningless, for you.

Does a galaxy have agency or cognizance? I can't really provide an answer for that. I simply don't know. I know for a fact though that the Milky Way galaxy has at least one dim spec of cognizance in it.  Maybe God beholds himself through these weak opsins alone. Again, I do not know.

Part/whole. If this were a useful response than concrete boats couldn't float and I'd be nearly incompressible. Obviously, neither statement is true. I'm confident in asserting that nothing we know or can detect about a galaxy, a god, or about cognizant beings with agency....would lead to the conclusion that all three are in the same set. Additionally, that much that we do know and can detect about each strongly suggests otherwise - even with multiple disparate conceptual groupings. This meets my bar for knowledge.

There was a reason that spinozas critics called him an atheist.

May not really need it's own thread. That there are people in the world who call this or that a god, and that I can agree that this or that exists, doesn't change or challenge the contents of my own knowledge. Trivialities and wordplay.

---

Lemme see if I can split the baby.  I'd say that where pantheism is competent is in showing that much of what is attributed to a god is, more accurately, misattribution.  However, it's incompetence comes from ignoring those things attributed to gods which distinguish them -from- "the universe"...and this is why it's silly to call the universe a god.

Let's say my kids never see me bake cookies, in their ignorance, they think my brother Jake bakes cookies.  If they find out that I'm the one baking the cookies..would it be sensible, then, for them to start calling -me- Jake? Is that the rational way to go on that one?

"Do you agree that Khem exists and bakes cookies? Yes, well..then, Jake exists!" -no.