Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.

...........continued
More words related to potential
attainable
adjective. within reach; achievable

• accessible
• accomplishable
• at hand
• available
• cherry pie
• duck soup
• easy
• feasible
• gettable
• likely
• no problem
• no sweat
• obtainable
• piece of cake
• possible
• potential
• practicable
• probable
• procurable
• reachable
• realizable
• securable

budding
adjective. developing, flowering

• beginning
• blossoming
• burgeoning
• bursting forth
• embryonic
• emerging
• fledgling
• fresh
• germinal
• germinating
• growing
• incipient
• maturing
• nascent
• opening
• potential
• promising
• pubescent
• pullulating
• shooting up
• sprouting
• vegetating
• young

capabilities
noun. ability to perform

• adequacy
• aptitude
• art
• capacity
• competence
• craft
• cunning
• effectiveness
• efficacy
• efficiency
• facility
• faculty
• means
• might
• potency
• potential
• potentiality
• power
• proficiency
• qualification
• qualifiedness
• skill
• wherewithal,lcapability

noun. ability to perform

• adequacy
• aptitude
• art
• capacity
• competence
• craft
• cunning
• effectiveness
• efficacy
• efficiency
• facility
• faculty
• means
• might
• potency
• potential
• potentiality
• power
• proficiency
• qualification
• qualifiedness
• skill
• wherewithal

continued........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

......continued,

dormant
adjective. inactive; sleeping

• abeyant
• asleep
• closed down
• comatose
• down
• fallow
• hibernating
• inert
• inoperative
• latent
• lethargic
• lurking
• on the shelf
• out of action
• passive
• potential
• prepatent
• quiescent
• sidelined
• slack
• sluggish
• slumbering
• smoldering
• suspended
• torpid

earthly
adjective. conceivable

• feasible
• imaginable
• likely
• mortal
• possible
• potential
• practical
• probable

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Write4U,
Not many people understand the significance of what you are saying, as it is wrapped up in all sorts of communication problems.
BUT....
YOU are absolutely correct in highlighting the fact that "Potential" is all we really have.
For reasons that even now, you are yet to fathom. Thousands of threads like this one would not even make a dint in in peoples understanding of the truth of what you are somewhat naively suggesting.

Perhaps one could consider that the realization of this truth ( the truth about potential) is what drives your ...uhmmm... difficulty in communicating.

The truth is utterly overwhelming to those unprepared for it....~QQ

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Almost sounds like your god, no? Except it isn't. No God required. It's a mathematical physical thing. And it can be quantified and qualified. I find it very easy to understand.

"That (latent ability) which may become reality". Worship is not required.

 

My God??
What God?
You seem to have an idea, more so than I, so please explain...

 

Ah right.
You make false claims. Get shown that they're false. Deny making them. Ask for them to be quoted. Get them quoted.
And now you resort to avoiding the subject altogether.
Way to go.

 

You did not qualify your God, so I must assume that you mean the God as described in the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormons.
If your concept is closer to mine than to scripture, welcome. I'd love to explore the implications contained in the definitions and application of universal potentials.

It gets us on the path of scientific exploration and mathematical explanations (equations).

E = Mc^2 is a mathematical expression of Potential.

 

If what you are saying is true, then I can only congratulate my mentor for such profiund teaching... the art of dodge and weave, bait and switch and strawnan use....
Thank you Sensei, I am in your debt.....

You may think that as a backhanded compliment but it's not. Every time I get an irrational response I learn more about the subject at hand. I also learn from rational responses but here at sciforums they are quite rare.

 

Ok… so what benefit does an atheist perceive by usin determinism as a proxy God.???

 

do you know what a leading question is?

 

So, again, you're going to ignore the fact that you made a false claim, were shown to be wrong and just carry on...

 

Explain what is "leading" about my queston.???

 

The contradiction exposed in the scientific fatalist/pre-determinist position can be summed up with the following:

When asked:
What is responsible for all of human suffering, historically, presently and in the future?

1. If the answer is HUMANS, a position that many if not most atheists would agree with, then self determination and freewill MUST be real and evident.
2. If the answer is THE UNIVERSES fatalistic determinism leading to pre-determinism, then freewill and self determination MUST be an illusion, and the Universe takes on the responsibility for all human suffering.

If the universe takes on that responsibility then it can be declared a proxy God by default.

Leading to the contradiction of an ( extreme ) Atheist believing in a proxy God.

The very last thing a scientific fatalist wishes, is to be considered a believer in a proxy God but that is where their extremist views on freewill and self determination logically takes them.

And guess what?
They can only blame their proxy God for the contradiction, after all to them freewill is an illusion...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

thank you again Oh Sensei!

 

you first...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question

 

I asked the first queston... so if wer'e goin by first... you'r "it"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's not my job to teach you the stuff you should have learned in highschool....
Do the research demonstrate a basic understanding and then it might be worth discussing things you may be confused about...
wiki is pretty good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question

Start a new thread and invite members to participate perhaps:
What is a leading question?

 

You coud just make a list of acceptable questons an then we coud choose one of 'em... LOL.!!!

 

Obviously the cartoonist is not aware of the influence Marxism has on politics.

 

Dancing Wu Li Masters? Gary Sukav?

Loved the book.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dancingmasters.pdf

 

So what would be different if there are one or numerous deterministic processes, with zero scope of anything being beyond one or all of them?