Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Apr 11, 2020.
It’s a relevant question Paddo.
Why do you refuse to answer it?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yep, quite relevant, and quite relevant that you have already been told many times, and also relevant that you have been caught out lying at worst, or at best simply demented, and also relevant that you redefine words to suit your agenda, and also relevant that any evidence given to you showing Darwinism and the theory of evolution as fact is discarded, and also relevant that you simply are trolling, rather then admit to the facts presented to you re Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
And anyway, I dare say you already know the accepted reputable answer, but it does nothing to support your mythical belief/s, so you stay with your comforting warm denial.
Agreed, but it should be noted anyway that this was all conveyed to him in the closed thread.
My belief is the acceptance of evidence that supports science in general.
The origin of everything is unknown in actual fact, because we must then speculate back beyond the t+10-43 seconds and which is off topic as you have been informed.
On the subject matter my definition of god/s are mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her. Or alternatively something at best we have no evidence for and could be construed as superfluous.
So do you accept that there is an origin of everything?
1. Is this a known fact?
2. At what point in human history, did “science rear it’s head to explain the wonders of the universe...?”
We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite..already explained to you. But certainly no evidence to support some mythical creature that you may chose to label as god/s.
Certainly it is. Go check out your history and stop being so obtuse.
Probably with the emergence of some of the greats, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Archimedes, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Kepler, Brahe. Not in any successive order just as they popped into my head, but since you are as usual trying to deride science and ask your usual loaded questions, each successive generation learnt from the science facts of the previous generation...or as Newton put it, standing on the shoulders of giants.
Then we get to the late 19th, early 20th century, with the advent of the likes of Curie, Meitner, Roentgen, Planck, Bohr, Bethe, Lorentz, Fitzerald, Szillard, Fermi, Einstein, Feynman, Guth, De-Grasse Tyson, Carroll etc etc etc.
Each successive generation standing on the shoulders of the previous and gradually explaining the universe, and showing at the same time, the utter superfluous nature of any creature often termed god/s.
Just a reminder for Jan, who obviously is again doing her level best to drag this off topic.
On the subject matter my definition of god/s are mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her.
Now Jan, the ball is in your court. Show my definition of god/s is wrong...you know some empirical evidence, that which you have been void of since we started crossing swords would be nice.
You said earlier that the Big Bang contained the universe, including time and space.
So we can conclude the that you think it is finite.
So as you’re not going to admit that you accept that there is an origin of everything, I will make that assumption based on what you have said in the past, that you do.
You accept God in His impersonal aspect, and you reject and deny God in His personal aspect.
I haven’t seen that anywhere, in any history.
You said; “On the subject matter my definition of god/s are mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her.”
What are your sources for this claim?
Can you be more specific?
So prior to the scientists you mentioned, the world had no knowledge of the universe, or its wonders?
This thread isn’t about showing which definition is right or wrong. It simply asks for definitions of God.
For you there is no God. That can not be classed as a definition of God.
Not at all...You again fail to grasp the important message that we do not yet know the how or why with any certainty, and can only be confident back to t+10-43 seconds. Plus of course the BB only entails the observable universe. You have a problem with comprehension and/or dementia?
I mean how many times do you really need to be told?
Make whatever assumption you like, as usual you are wrong, and/or being dishonest, a trait you seem to live by.
Perhaps a head shrinker may also be beneficial to your problem Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In denial again? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Science making and showing any need for such a creature as superfluous at best and an unevidenced myth at worst.
What are your sources for your claim/s?
Not really, other then science is a gradual process, that is forever continuing that process. Unlike of course religion and any mythical baggage that it generally entails.
[Although obviously the Catholic church has advanced somewhat in recognising the BB, Darwinism and the theory of evolution.]
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Stop being a fool Jan, it doesn't become your creationist/religious philosophy. You expect me to name every scientist thathas made some notable contribution to knowledge? Yeah, I forgot you are a troll!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The King of all cop outs from the forum creationist that lies and weasels his way in and out of conflict and his mythical false notions and ideas.
Again, just to be clear, my definition of the myth that some refer to as god/s is "Mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her."
You don't like it? Tough titty!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
More evasion Paddo.
You said the Big Bang produced the universe, meaning the universe, including space time and matter had a starting point in the finite past.
You are showing yourself to be dishonest right now, by blatantly denying and rejecting something you said in this very thread.
Why don’t you back up your claim that history shows “that god/s are mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her?
That’s what’s known as a pseudo belief.
I didn’t think so.
So why make such a claim?
That is not a definition of God.
A definition of God is to identify the nature and characteristic of God, or to explain the meaning of the the term “God”.
Start a thread on the BB if you like, and we'll do you there.
I'll let the other members be the best judge of your usual lies.
I'm not here to spoon feed your ignorance. That certainly is history and to deny that fact again simply re enforces what the forum knows about you.
Like I said, I'm not a professional to be able to name all scientists, working up to the present time when any god/s is seen as superfluous by most scientists. But just as obvious is of course your own ignorance, backed up by lies and the changing of definitions to suit your agenda and please those overlords.
Because obviously it is fact, just as my own gaps in the facts of Darwinism and the theory of evolution, does not invalidate that.
And just as your own ignorance and other well known "qualities"will never invalidate those same facts.
It certainly is a definition of the myth that is god/s, and is also evident of how again, you choose the dishonest approach of changing definitions when it interferes with your agenda.
Let me again repeat....
The concept of god/s is "Mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her."
Sorry again about that offending your sensitivities.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You define God as "the transcendental origin of everything."
I don't know whether all theists think that God is the transcendental cause of everything. Not all theists even believe in that kind of supreme god, and not all gods are assume to cause everything.
The ones who say that God is undefinable.
Or via a non-transcendental cause, like I said. A discussion for a different thread.
If you want to remove the word "transcendental" from your definition of God, then you can have "God" as a synonym for the "origin of everything". Otherwise, you will need to make a case.
That is precisely why we believe in God.
So what do other theists believe in, if not that kind of Supreme God?
Can you give an example, so we can discuss it?
It stands to reason.
If the Big Bang brought everything into existence, then there must have been a cause.
That cause must be outside of everything.
Why believe in anything that there is no evidence for, and which science has shown to be superfluous? Other then of course for personal comfort and warm inner satisfaction against the fear of the finality of death.
This should be good! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Speaking from a position of ignorance, makes you look even more ignorant. Check out the BB thread and you may learn some facts about that which you are in total confusion about at best, or trolling at worst.
That's the most honest answer you have given in many a long day.
I interpret it as total ignorance.
Belief is not in question here. Read the title of the thread.
We need a list of all the gods that we are aware of define each one.
It will be a very long list as humans sure have invented an extraordinary long list.
Without going outside of christianity I expect we would literally have thousands of definitions...well of course we must as each different christian cult has a different version to the next...that's why there are so many.
Although there is one thing they all have in common...they all need money... as George Carlin observed re just one god..he needs money just can't seem to handle money.
And when we talk to folk like Jan what they never disclose is just how much money they give gods agents...it is not uncommon to find ten percent off the top.
mormons ( even at the start of a sentence these phonies won't get a capital letter from me) pay ten per cent I believe.
So when Jan argues for his beliefs here it is now doubt he is trying to protect his investment after all if he for one moment gave up on god he stands to lose a lot of money I expect..of course he will deny that and possibly lie about giving contributions or not.
So that is one important quality in any definition of god..likes money, needs money and somehow never gets enough.
And the other thing each of these gods are put forward as the answer to cosmology...heck how many different creators could we list..and really how silly...the Universe is eternal so there are no creators.
What else can we find in common..well they all think sex is a sin and that women are second class citizens... Oh and most of them don't like gay folk.
Oh what's the point.
We cant list all the gods and certainly can never give them a definition that would be approved by that specific cult.
But back to the money, that seems key...
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now that might have some credibility, if you yourself had any credibility.
Again repeating....The concept of god/s is "Mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her."
or perhaps....God/s are unscientific, unevidenced mythical concepts, ignorantly fabricated to avoid the reality and finality of death, by substituting a warm, inner pleasurable feeling.
Pity that is not as good as real sex.
Separate names with a comma.