[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I find what you saying in response to what I write a personal attack.

The very clear and obvious difference being that I was not attacking you, I was attacking the lack of rationality and logic in your approach. The fact that you perceived my posts as personal attack has no bearing at all on the content of those posts.

You, however, attacked me personally. Do you see the difference?

I attacked your logic, and pointed out flaws in it.
You attacked me.

I don't really care how you perceived it, I was not attacking you.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

The term friend, implies human qualities and I have never said God has human qualities. In fact I repeatedly argue against a God with human qualities, who can rule by whim, depending on if he is pleased or not. Now your turn to defend your comment.

My comment remains as relevant as ever. The object you are describing and arguing in favor for is just as imaginary as the abrahamic god. You've posited some imaginary entity and simply asked for me to take it more seriously than the abrahamic god because that's the one to which you've personally ascribed.

You cannot say that I'm being silly talking about purple unicorns, but then suggest that you are being rational talking about an "energy" or an "entity" which is beyond nature.

For purposes of this dialog, both are equally invalid, and your request that I give some greater importance to your Ciceroan supernatural celestial dictator than to an abrahamic god, or a purple unicorn for that matter, is completely unsupportable.

It's as if you're telling me that it's silly to believe in the tooth fairy, but then telling me also how you believe in Santa claus and should somehow be taken more seriously for doing so.

Exactly the same footing as a purple unicorn, all equally imaginary. Recognize my attack on your premise and not on you personally. It would be appreciated if you could respond in kind.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by wddycus

This is my final note on this for a while the way most people believe is God or Science but I believe in both. Take God and the Bible I do not take the bible literally man wrote it with a Little help from God. Man has wrote our Science book with no help from God or maybe a little help. these hard nose Science people is like the holly rollers they can only see their side.No I do not believe god controls people he just let it happen most of the time because of free wheel. He know people would have to have a explanation in how thing started because we all have ask the questions Where,When,and Why? God knows we will try an find the answer to these questions but that is where Faith come in.If you have no Faith their is no way you can believe God because this is what it is all about. All I have to say is I Will Pray For You All. God Bless You
Dan

I appreciate the sentiment but in more than 50 years of praying and watching others pray I have never seen prayer change anything faster or better than wishing.

[Pyrotex]

The word "god" is very interesting. It is a noun. It is also a non-referential noun.

Referential nouns are like "tree" and "cloud". If asked what they mean, I can point to one or more material examples of each. If I point at enough trees, then the observer can gather what they have in common, and derive a working definition of "tree". Words like "music", "art" and "seasons" (of the year) also fall into this catagory.

Some nouns are quasi-referential--like "love" and "intelligence". There are no material objects you can point at, but you can point to human behavior for examples. Quasi-referential nouns often refer to abstract relationships between humans, or within human or system behavior. You can't point to the thing itself, but you can point to the objects that exhibit the thing.

Then there are non-referential nouns. You cannot point to examples. You cannot point to humans or systems. The best you can do is to point to stories or illustrations conjured out of someone's imagination. Non-referential objects are not as common as the other kinds. They include "leprechaun", "ghost", "grimphymoggin" and yes, "god"

Many, if not most, non-referential nouns refer to creatures of myth and legend. The Cyclops. The Centaur. We can describe them out of our imagination, and then point to our stories and pictures, but we are basically just pointing to our imagination. Most folks are comfortable with this, as long as you're talking about leprechauns or unicorns.

But people get upset if you point out that no one can point to a "god".

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

The word "god" is very interesting. It is a noun. It is also a non-referential noun.

Referential nouns are like "tree" and "cloud". If asked what they mean, I can point to one or more material examples of each. If I point at enough trees, then the observer can gather what they have in common, and derive a working definition of "tree". Words like "music", "art" and "seasons" (of the year) also fall into this catagory.

Some nouns are quasi-referential--like "love" and "intelligence". There are no material objects you can point at, but you can point to human behavior for examples. Quasi-referential nouns often refer to abstract relationships between humans, or within human or system behavior. You can't point to the thing itself, but you can point to the objects that exhibit the thing.

Then there are non-referential nouns. You cannot point to examples. You cannot point to humans or systems. The best you can do is to point to stories or illustrations conjured out of someone's imagination. Non-referential objects are not as common as the other kinds. They include "leprechaun", "ghost", "grimphymoggin" and yes, "god"

Many, if not most, non-referential nouns refer to creatures of myth and legend. The Cyclops. The Centaur. We can describe them out of our imagination, and then point to our stories and pictures, but we are basically just pointing to our imagination. Most folks are comfortable with this, as long as you're talking about leprechauns or unicorns.

But people get upset if you point out that no one can point to a "god".

Very interesting distinction of words. I hope I remember what you said, because it can be very useful in organizing our thoughts.

However, when the bible and Koran speak of God, both are firm on the idea that we should make no image of God. Both speak of God being beyond our comprehension. These concepts of God make the word "God" different from leprechauns or unicorns which we can picture and identify in pictures, and discribe in finite terms.

What is "factor X" in this system of labeling nouns?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

The very clear and obvious difference being that I was not attacking you, I was attacking the lack of rationality and logic in your approach. The fact that you perceived my posts as personal attack has no bearing at all on the content of those posts.

You, however, attacked me personally. Do you see the difference?

I attacked your logic, and pointed out flaws in it.
You attacked me.

I don't really care how you perceived it, I was not attacking you.





My comment remains as relevant as ever. The object you are describing and arguing in favor for is just as imaginary as the abrahamic god. You've posited some imaginary entity and simply asked for me to take it more seriously than the abrahamic god because that's the one to which you've personally ascribed.

You cannot say that I'm being silly talking about purple unicorns, but then suggest that you are being rational talking about an "energy" or an "entity" which is beyond nature.

For purposes of this dialog, both are equally invalid, and your request that I give some greater importance to your Ciceroan supernatural celestial dictator than to an abrahamic god, or a purple unicorn for that matter, is completely unsupportable.

It's as if you're telling me that it's silly to believe in the tooth fairy, but then telling me also how you believe in Santa claus and should somehow be taken more seriously for doing so.

Exactly the same footing as a purple unicorn, all equally imaginary. Recognize my attack on your premise and not on you personally. It would be appreciated if you could respond in kind.

Toshay, I am objecting to your rational. You nicely dodged that fact that you insist on a narrow definition of a God with human qualities, by changing your termonology to a more acceptable word, entity. Yes, I believe atomic particles exist and that all is bond by laws. Are you arguing this existence is not so?

That of which I speak is not beyond nature, but is nature, and it is because you do not get that, that I object to your arguments, and say you are arguing against your own comprehension of God, not my arguements of the existance of God.

How is speaking of the existence of atomic particles and the universal laws of all manifestation, equal to speaking of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? What I get is, you just don't get it, and therefore, your arguments are off the wall and are not addressing my argument. Darn, I really need to study the rules of argumentation so I can more accurately explain the logic errors in your argument, based on your understanding of God, not mine. Either you did not read the Cicero quote, or you did not understand it, because you insist the existance of the God, of which I speak, is not natural. I think you are intelligent enough to understand Cicero, so my guess is you didn't read it, or perhaps the quote is too limited to convey the fuller concept?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I appreciate the sentiment but in more than 50 years of praying and watching others pray I have never seen prayer change anything faster or better than wishing.

Here is where I perhaps differ from you. I have experienced a relationship between mind and matter. I believe there is a relationship between mind and body. I have had experiences that people would call ESP. I think being closed minded about such things, causes a blindness that is not helpful. On the other hand I would not bet my life on every idea I believe could be so. I just do not know enough to do that.

Gosh, this is hard. I also spent many years praying for life changes that were never manifested, and strongly object to bible lessons about a God who rules by whim, and rewards or punishes people as He pleases. I believe prayers can change somethings, but not others. I am sure incantations to the goddesses work, but this is easily explained as psycohological phenomenia, independent of anything that could be considered supernatural. Believing we can achieve something, is more apt to lead to us achieving that something, than waiting for a god or goddess to manifest our desires. Meditation is helpful in overcoming some medical problems, especially ones related to stress and cancer. People have actually postponed their own dying until a particular event passes. This is documented. There is a mind body connection and this involves prayer and meditation.

For me there is a difference between wondering about the connections between mind and matter, such as are mentioned in the movie "What the Bleep Do We know", or believing in a mythological God and supernatural beings that effect our lives. How could I not wonder, considering I have had what people label ESP experiences? Every time it happens, I think, well, it happened again, but I don't have an explanation for it. It is like experiencing fog and not knowing why there is fog. I don't know why it happens, I just know it does. Asking why and how, can be a progressive exploration of truth. Saying, "you are wrong, and what you think is as stupid as believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus", does not move us forward to understanding anything.

Moontanman, you are wise to express your experience, rather than behave as an almighty authority who can be absolutely sure about reality, and therefore, can confidently inform people of their stupidy. Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that your experience may not be the only possible experience. This leave room for others to say they have experienced something different. You are wise and considerate.

[freeztar]

nutronjon, you asserted that god is nature. InfiniteNow asserts that god is as real as purple unicorns. Neither stance is defensible when it comes to empirical data. I can't run an experiment to confirm or deny either. (I think this is what Pyrotex was getting at)

So, I don't think that IN is "not getting it", but rather, I believe he's pointing out that both cases are unprovable, as outlined in the paragraph above.

As far as a concept of god is concerned, I like the idea of nature (the universe) being god. It's the most appealing idea of god imho. It still imparts the same uncertainty/faith though.

This is why I consider myself agnostic. The different types of agnosticism are listed in that article.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Here is where I perhaps differ from you. I have experienced a relationship between mind and matter. I believe there is a relationship between mind and body. I have had experiences that people would call ESP. I think being closed minded about such things, causes a blindness that is not helpful. On the other hand I would not bet my life on every idea I believe could be so. I just do not know enough to do that.

Science has shown a link between mind and body. Science has shown us nothing about "ESP". So while it may seem that people are being close-minded, remember where you are posting.

I agree that it is not good to be close-minded about most things (ideally, all things). Yet, it seems a condition of our existence. On opposite sides of the deity chasm, you'll find intelligent people with closed minds. Indeed, I believe everyone's mind is closed to a certain degree or other. So, in a sense, we are all blind.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Moontanman, you are wise to express your experience, rather than behave as an almighty authority who can be absolutely sure about reality, and therefore, can confidently inform people of their stupidy. Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that your experience may not be the only possible experience. This leave room for others to say they have experienced something different. You are wise and considerate.

I do appreciate your confidence in me nutron and I really don't think anyone here would say that different people do not have different experiences even when experiencing the same thing. I do have to say though that just because you experience something it doesn't make it true in any way outside your own experiences. I have said this many times and I will say it again, God, no matter how you define or deny his (or her or it's) existence cannot be expressed in a manner that is compatible with real science. God would be by definition above natural law and science cannot deal with the supernatural. If your idea of god is within the purview of science then it becomes a supreme or higher level of intelligence but we or any other intelligent creature can aspire to that level, we cannot aspire to be God. On the other hand if you want to believe that god is simply the entirety of the universe being aware of it's self then we must be a part of that awareness and therefor this concept of god is not supernatural and is not within the classic idea of God. I'm not sure if I can really equate this concept with Science or the supernatural, you may really be talking about a third possibility. I have never really heard a definition that describes this idea. I know it's not a new concept but fitting it in any of these definitions would seem to be difficult if not impossible.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

That of which I speak is not beyond nature, but is nature, and it is because you do not get that, that I object to your arguments, and say you are arguing against your own comprehension of God, not my arguements of the existance of God.

Right. That's called nature. Not God. I'm fine if you call it nature, but calling it god brings a whole new aspect to the equation, and I'm simply stating that this "extra" aspect is unecessary and should be left out.


If you want to give nature extra and arbitrary "specialness" by calling it god, then that's fine, but don't expect me to take you seriously since the concept of nature covers the issue quite adequately on it's own, and without the nonsense laden baggage and vast preconceptions that come with the god concept.


If we call balloons rocks, then you can say that rocks can be twisted into animal shapes by circus clowns. ... It's still just a balloon though, not a rock.


By the way, it's "Touché."