What good will my justification of God do for you? Yeah! In your dreams. You're aware we're using the definition. Aren't you? jan.
If you were honestly engaging in debate, this justification would be the core of your participation. However, since you have demonstrated your dishonesty, please continue to not honestly participate.
Why would it be better than a definition we all agree upon? Do you accept the definition of God I put forward? jan.
Convincing me that a God exists. Are you done with it yet? You keep adding things. You just added that God knows everything without having to acquire knowledge.
Because argument is argument, not merely presenting a definition! Presenting a definition is a beginning. And you keep lying about definitions. You present one, then you try to retract it, over and over again. Sure, if you want to stick to an inconsistent definition, then I'm happy. But since you've since lied to us by claiming that the definition you've offered is not your definition, I'm not sure what you think you're saying now. Care to try again to provide a clear definition that you might actually try to stick to?
You turn the definition into a statement of fact of its existence in the way you speak about it. Notice the way you speak about God and the way you might speak about Superman, for example. If BillyT put forward the claim that it is correct then he would be claiming it, yes. He would also be stating where it came from, who first formed the arguments behind it etc. So we would know it was not his original argument / claim. But for the purposes of those arguing against him and that argument, yes, it would indeed be his, and his to defend. So take responsibility. You put it forward as the definition you believe in, so support it, stand up for it, own it. Don't just turn round and say "well, it's not mine!" That is simply dishonest. You certainly believe you know. I think we're still waiting for anything to actually be presented other than the definition, and your supporting belief that we had an origin. Or is that it? Can you name one thing that you know of that has actually come into existence rather than being merely a transformation of pre-existing material/energy. Care to prove that we actually had an origin, rather than just merely transform from one arrangement of matter/energy into another, some of which display emergent properties not inherent within the individual parts? I'm not playing your games of burden-shifting, thanks. You make claims, you support them. It's not for me to explain how something might not exist, I simply want you to provide the support for its existence. Unless you are simply admitting that your God is reality, reality is God etc? Would I be so foolish as to try to claim that reality does not exist? No. And in such a case God becomes a valueless label. But I think you hold your God to be more than just reality, right?
Jan, you asked for proof and application of the definition of Potential. The list is too long to present proofs in detail. Suffice it to say that the following link shows the abstract and concrete meanings and practical applications of Potential. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/potential Can we use the term Brahman as a substitute for the definition and application of potential? E =Mc^2 is an equation of potential (tested and proved by the use and expression of this latent potential on Hiroshima), but I have never heard E =Mc^2 is an equation of Brahman. But by your allegorical equivalence, we should be able to say Brahman residing in the bomb caused the devastation of Hiroshima. How do you think Brahman would feel about that?
Don't know what you're talking about. It's a definition, pure and simple. But it wouldn't be his. I stated where it came from. You're talking nonsense. No. I know. The thing itself comes into existence. And are you really going to waste time with this? No. Okay. Jan.
So this thread has degenerated (further) from a discsuion about proof of God to a sermon about God. Never saw that coming.
Jan it seems we have something in common. Jan first of all these scriptures were simply chants because they were made up centuries before the inve tion of writing, so I believe, so even the recording of these personal views were subject to corruption. How can we conclude anything other that the originators made stuff up? There is no other way for them, they guessed at cosmology and presenting guesses as fact must be called a lie. Do you claim they recorded observable and verifiable fact if so please explain how they determined their facts. If you seek to use the scripture as your platform then the burden of proof rests with you to show why they are more than made up, please show us how the ancients were capable of working out cosmology well before humans could even write. Alex
It's a definition of something that you claim exists in actuality. And within that claim lies your argument that, other than "it exists by definition" and that you believe we had an origin, we are struggling for you to reveal. Yes it would, for the purposes of the discussion. It would be his argument on the basis that he put it forward. His to support. His to defend. His. That it is borrowed even word for word from someone else is irrelevant. If I say, for example, "My friend Tim defines you as arrogant and obnoxious, and I agree with him" you think I can simply turn around and say "well it's not me saying that, it's just a definition!" and expect people to take me seriously about it? Or would they say that by me agreeing with his definition I have taken it as my own, to support, to defend? What you are doing by disowning your own position in such a manner is simply dishonest and ridiculous. So, from now on, whenever anyone makes reference to your definition or your argument I suggest you simply assume they mean the one you have put forward in the discussion, whether it is yours originally or not, okay? You did, now take ownership of it given that you are the one promoting it, and arguing from that base. You would be the only one thinking that in this regard. If you push/promote/agree with a definition, or an argument, within a discussion then it is yours to defend and support, irrespective of whether you are the originator of that definition or argument. I honestly can't believe you need to be told this, Jan. Have you gone your entire life disowning anything you believe or argue simply because you weren't the originator of the thought? So you believe. Name something that has ever come into existence rather than is merely a transformation of pre-existing matter/energy? Can you do that, please? You say you believe we have an origin (now is this a claim you are owning as yours, or did someone else originate it?) so I am assuming you can name something that actually had an origin, rather than is merely a transformation of that which already exists. This is to clarify exactly what you mean by words such as "origin", "cause", "create" etc. So after all this time, after putting forth a definition of God for discussion, you can't actually prove that it relates to anything in actuality? All you can do is say that you "know" it exists but you can't prove it to us? Wow, what a miserable waste of time this exercise has been. I thought you had more than simply your belief, Jan. Seems not. It seems, whether you appreciate it or not, that you believe simply because, well, you believe. But then I'm sure you've been told that many times in the past.
What would be the point? I'm aware that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so everythingi s a transformation. I've already stated it with Write4U, and agreed with his notion of potential. You know what I mean when I say "come into existence". The object itself, not it's nature. Now are you going to answer my questions so that we can progress to the task at hand, or are you going to carry on attempting to waste time with these long, no content replies? Jan.
