Martian:
a christian is either thinking of yahweh or jesus, and a muslim is thinking of Allah, and PaganNja is thinking of a Rock or whatever God is to him, Jenwitemi might be thinking of an undefined "God", Deepsight his thinking of himself and what he would be like if he was omnipotent, Olaadegbu is thinking of Hitler(but he doesn't know it) etc.

Deep Sight:
In any theist/ atheist discussion, the primary definition of God is well settled:

hmm, just because you settled it with your self doesn't mean everybody agrees.

Deep Sight:
It refers to an unembodied transcendental mind responsible for all alse that exists

So this cosmic mind of yours doesn't need a physcial brain. lol

Deep Sight:
This is beqond cavil

Of course it is, Lord DeepSight!!

Deep Sight:
and as I said, no serious discussant will seek to eternally quibble about that.

Whatever you say milord, it is indeed beyond cavil!!! God will henceforth be known as that "unembodied transcendental mind"................at least it's better than Anony's "extraphysical".

Martian:

hmm, just because you settled it with your self doesn't mean everybody agrees.

So this cosmic mind of yours doesn't need a physcial brain. lol

Of course it is, Lord DeepSight!!

Whatever you say milord, it is indeed beyond cavil!!! God will henceforth be known as that "unembodied transcendental mind"................at least it's better than Anony's "extraphysical".

I hope you are not missing the point here. The point is not at the outset to prove the existence of "God" as any group may conceive. It is simply to state - this is what God is conceived as - as a basis for then commencing a discussion. So if you are discussing with Olaadegbu, you know what he has in mind. Claiming that you dont is a lie. He is clear that he is referring to the Christian ontology of God. If you are speaking to TBABA1234, you also know what he has in mind. If you are speaking to me, I have also been clear about what I have in mind. Therefore my issue with Idehn is that there is no need to quibble about definitions. The discussion should proceed. You can then go on to show why God as conceived by the person you are discussing with, does not exist. Rather than claiming there is no definition. This is a lie.

The biggest piont in this, is that for all three views of God referred to above, there are core common denominators. You guys cannot lie that there aren't. All three regard God as non-physical/ intangible, transcendental, supreme, and the eternal first cause/ creator. It takes a staggering level of dishonesty for anyone to claim that this is not the case, or that such does not form an essential definition on which a proper debate can then proceed.

In fact, if you guys reflect for one second you will see how untenable what you are saying is. This is because the fundamental debate between the atheist and the theist is as to whether there exists a creator of this reality in which we live. That is the core of the debate. As such, for the purpose of such a debate, only one attribute even needs any recognition in terms of the discusion - the attribute of being "creator". That is all. So you can see how hopelessly misfooted this business of "define this, define that", really is!

Because you each know that every theist is speaking about a Creator.

And in pure logic, questions such as who created the creator, is the creator good or evil, is the creator physical/nonphysical - are in reality tangential to the discussion. The pure question is if there is a creator of this universe. If there is, then the question is answered, whether it be created by something else, and whether it be good or evil, and whether it be physical or non-physical.

That's the point.

Simply saying that there is no definition is the lie of lies and escapism of escapisms in all recorded history.

Deep Sight:
I hope you are not missing the point here. The point is not at the outset to prove the existence of "God" as any group may conceive. It is simply to state - this is what God is conceived as as a basis for then commencing a discussion. .

Doesn't the bolded support the atheist who says, god is a figment of your imagination? You said what god is "conceived as" because all views of god are subjective. Isn't that my point?

Deep Sight:
So if you are discussing with Olaadegbu, you know what he has in mind. Claiming that you dont is a lie. He is clear that he is referring to the Christian ontology of God. If you are speaking to TBABA1234, you also know what he has in mind. If you are speaking to me, I have also been clear about what I have in mind. Therefore my issue with Idehn is that there is no need to quibble about definitions. The discussion should proceed. You can then go on to show why God as conceived by the person you are discussing with, does not exist Rather than claiming there is no definition. This is a lie.

Olaadegbu claims his god is the real one and he presents jewish mythology as his evidence, tbaba presents the plagiarized version of the jewish myth and you just made your a "unembodied mind" up. The first two are simply middleeastern myths, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons you don't believe in them( recently, you ridiculed the virgin birth and those who believe in it), so don't try to present them as if you believe they are right. And your god is just the latest version of oneness of infinity. You've been defining and redefining what you "conceive" god as since we've both been on this board, so why should i suddenly take this "unembodied mind" serioulsy and discuss it. Why should i think your god is different from the rest?

Deep Sight:
The biggest piont in this, is that for all three views of God referred to above, there are core common denominators. You guys cannot lie that there aren't. All three regard God as non-physical/ intangible, transcendental, supreme, and the eternal first cause/ creator. It takes a staggering level of dishonesty for anyone to claim that this is not the case, or that such does not form an essential definition on which a proper debate can then proceed.

So the common denominator is that they can't be proven AND that they depend on the agreeability of the person you're trying to sell them to. Another point, the reason your "unembodied mind", shares all those wonderful transcendental attributes with the forst two is because you based it off of the extant monotheistic beliefs prevalent in nigeria.if you were born in India, you will be talking about a god with six arms or some sh#t like that. And what's so special about giving God all those attributes,allah or yahweh were notthe first gods said to be "intangible".

Deep Sight:
In fact, if you guys reflect for one second you will see how untenable what you are saying is. This is because the fundamental debate between the atheist and the theist is as to whether there exists a creator of this reality in which we live. That is the core of the debate. As such, for the purpose of such a debate, only one attribute even needs any recognition in terms of the discusion - the attribute of being "creator". That is all. So you can see how hopelessly misfooted this business of "define this, define that", really is!
Because you each know that every theist is speaking about a Creator.

But every theist isn't speaking about the same creator and the argument remains that if your creator shares the same attributes as mythological characters, then it's very likely that it isn't real.

Deep Sight:
And in pure logic, questions such as who created the creator, is the creator good or evil, is the creator physical/nonphysical - are in reality tangential to the discussion. The pure question is if there is a creator of this universe. If there is, then the question is answered, whether it be created by something else, and whether it be good or evil, and whether it be physical or non-physical.
That's the point.
Simply saying that there is no definition is the lie of lies and escapism of escapisms in all recorded history.

There is no escapism, your god and their gods are all in your heads. They are what you "conceive" the "creator" to be like because you don't know even if there is a creator talkless of defining it as an "unembodied mind". What the hell is an unembodied mind??

I don't ask if the creator is good or evil or the other crap you wrote, the answer to the question is that no one knows if there is a creator of the universe and every explanantion that depends someone's personal opinion is nothing but an opinion. If you want to discuss it, then make it make sense, "unembodied mind" and other intangible features doesn't make you right.

Martian:

Doesn't the bolded support the atheist who says, god is a figment of your imagination? You said what god is "conceived as" because all views of god are subjective. Isn't that my point?

My friend, you cannot rest on this, because if that is the case, our entire existence will be nothing but imagination for the simple reason that we have conceptions of every single thing.

Olaadegbu claims his god is the real one and he presents jewish mythology as his evidence, tbaba presents the plagiarized version of the jewish myth and you just made your a "unembodied mind" up. The first two are simply middleeastern myths, and I'm sure that's one of the reasons you don't believe in them( recently, you ridiculed the virgin birth and those who believe in it), so don't try to present them as if you believe they are right. And your god is just the latest version of oneness of infinity. You've been defining and redefining what you "conceive" god as since we've both been on this board, so why should i suddenly take this "unembodied mind" serioulsy and discuss it. Why should i think your god is different from the rest?

Don't beat yourself up about all this - the simple point is the question as to whether or not the universe is created?

We need to look at principles of logic in that regard. If we do so, we would be inclined to believe that it is created on account of the principles of causality which we observe in that which we see in reality.

That's all. Any addittional beliefs are entirely NOT the remit of this discussion: I explain -

- Does Deep Sight Exist?

- If indeed it is commonsensical to believe that the posts herein are made by a humanbeing, then you could conclude that Deep Sight exists - IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF DEEP SIGHT WHICH DIFFERENT POSTERS MAY HAVE!

- Thus the issue is the existence of a creator - regardless the idiosyncratic notions about it.

So the common denominator is that they can't be proven

The common denominator is in the principle of prime cause of existence and reality. Simple. Not even you can deny that. Especially with reference to a theistic/ atheistic debate.

But every theist isn't speaking about the same creator

Indisputably, every theist is saying that there is A creator. Stop pettifogging.

Because if there is in reality a creator of this universe, it would mean that the atheist is wrong - regardless of the one million wrong or right views of such a creator that may exist. If a creator exists, the atheist is wrong, simple. The fact that Jews think of it as a blood thirsty Yahwoeh would not mean that they were thus wrong on the supposition which concerns the athiest/ theist debate: namely that there is a creator.

As such, the definition whirlpools are still moot, empty, and miss the pith of the discourse.

There is no escapism, your god and their gods are all in your heads. They are what you "conceive" the "creator" to be like because you don't know even if there is a creator talkless of defining it as an "unembodied mind". What the hell is an unembodied mind??

There is no difference between that term and the initial term that I used when I spoke about the Oneness of Infinity (Peace be upon it). But seeing the furore generated on this forum by that term, let's, for purposes of discussion, simply say that God refers to the Creator of the Universe. I am hoping that that is simple enough, and that it will beyond even you to claim that that is an unclear definition: remember - it is a definition - and not proof. Proof is where the proper discussion comes in. My issue is that Mr. Idehn will not allow a proper discussion because he will tell you that even this, as simple as it is, is an unclear or difficult definition. This is where I see unfathomable dishonesty or just irascible fundamentalism in you both. You are more rigid than teh religionist, and far less open to new ideas than the religionist is.

I don't ask if the creator is good or evil or the other crap you wrote, the answer to the question is that no one knows if there is a creator of the universe and every explanantion that depends someone's personal opinion is nothing but an opinion. If you want to discuss it, then make it make sense, "unembodied mind" and other intangible features doesn't make you right.

The laws of cause and effect, thermodynamics, and motion, are not my personal opinion, bro.

These self same laws heavily rest in favour of the theistic notion that there is an external element responsible for the causation of the universe.

Oh, and just for readers, this is not a new matter. Its very old on this board. Mr. Idehn has always insisted - sometimes to the point of absurdity, that even in terms of atheistic/ theistic discussions, there is no basic or common definition of the word "God" from which a discussion can commence.

https://www.nairaland.com/818040/deepsight-does-god-create-ex#9712944

How does one have any discussion on the existence/ non-existence of God, with such a poster.

An impossibility!

^^^
Yawn.

Martian: ^^^
Yawn.

Nice to yawn when you CANNOT rebutt that which has been said.

Honestly. You guys should examine yourselves and some of the absurd claims you make. I am many times tempted to regard your atheism as a mere fad, something hip or fashionable for you, something that you think makes you look "smart."

Because otherwise I cannot fathom how you guys will say some of the things you say, such as to claim that the word "God" has no definition on which a discussion can commence. I really wonder why such a word is in the dictionary, and why disctionary-writers never bother to distinguish between the word "God" as used in the different religions?

And here again, for another great round of Idehn's insistence that there is no basic definition of what the word "God" refers to.

https://www.nairaland.com/693958/atheism-higgs-boson-god#8564583

I am yet to understand why he does not see the contradiction in even using the word at all, if it has no definition. Whenever some one says "God" in the context of any sentence, it is doubtful that Mr. Idehn can honestly say to himself that he is clueless on what the person means by such, in basic terms.

Hmmph!

Prizm:


[size=14pt]I have no desire for the sort of pointless exchanges where discussants intentionally strive as it were to misunderstand each other. And sadly, you have been guilty of this severally. One might conclude based on your questions and assertions that you have no real desire for an honest exchange of ideas – just unvarnished dogmatic skepticism. If your complaint is that some of the terms used are not clear, I suppose a brief research on your part, or an honest request for clarification will help. If your strategy is to dig in your heels and quibble over every word or sentence when they undercut some of your arguments or positions, then I am sorry to inform you that I have no stomach for that sort of merry-go-round. Anybody can sit in his/her easy chair and play the role of the unflinching skeptic.[/size]

Prizm said it all, three years ago!

[b][size=14pt]Notice that I said, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation" and not “everything that begins to exist has a cause or explanation”. I said that because I know that sometimes dogmatic atheists may start to quibble with the definitions of even simple words like "something" "everything" etc in a manner that they wouldn't even dream of doing in the real world. Just take a look at the thread to see how some have even started asking for the meaning of "something" or "nothing". Can anyone reasonably conclude that the persons asking such questions are conspicuously mired in ambiguity when these terms are used? Can it be said that they have no conception of what it means to say that there is "something" or "nothing"? It kind of reminds one of the way Bill Clinton reputedly asked for what the word 'is' really meant during his Monica Lewinsky sex scandal investigation. Who really has the time or the desire for such inconsequential hair-splitting?[/size][/b]

.

The brilliant Prizm sums it up again!

.....Yaaaaaawwnnnnnnnn

Frosbel start a thread, assuming that atheism is religion uan.
First mistake.
Atheism is not a religion but a theological position.
After such nonsense, what can you say in this thread?
Fros ... prior to moving the fingers, it would be good to think a little

Deep Sight: .
I actually have no qualms with anybody asking for a specific definition of God in relation to a specific discussion. The only reason I consistently bother you about this is the fact that you go on ad infinitum ad nauseum and deliberately stall discussions at that point alone. I am aware, just as you are, that there is no definition which any one can give or has ever given, which has allowed you to say, very well, let us discuss this God as defined. You will simply say that the definition is not good and as such there can be no discussion. Can you deny that this is what you have consistently and tiresomely done?

If they defined God as the Sun, themselves, or heck even Gerbil that would at least allow for a meaningful discussion of Gods existence. But of course people always insist on making God an unintelligible word salad. This is what is tiresome. The fact that I constantly have to point out how utterly incoherent concepts like and disembodied mind and even the one=infinity that you constantly say is also tiresome.

Deep Sight: .
Have you ever accepted any definition whatsoever as a basis for engaging any discussion?

When we examine the ontology of God we are already engaged in discussion . It is just that people want to skip that part and head straight to the part were we decide if it exist or not. You cannot talk about existence without clarifying WHAT exist.
The ones that have more in-depth discussions usually treat "God" as a psychological/neurological phenomenon. I watched an interesting discussion of the God concept in terms of mimetic. It still could not get to question of existence due to failure to actually define what a meme physically is. Go figure.

Deep Sight: .
Even when I have offered you the barest minimum common denominator in the universal understanding of the word "God" - you have still rejectred same and refused to discuss, claiming that there is no definition and as such, no discussion can hold on the subject. You have done this consistently for a very long time, and frankly its tiresome and irritating.

There you go again asserting that" God" has a universal definition. The man presented his definition, and we proceeded to discuss the ontology of his God concept. If it fails at coherency it fails at coherency. You presented your definition and it is already failing upon scrutiny. Your definition and the support for it are based on faulty reasoning. First you claim that non physical objects exist. Then you essentially proceed to say we can still perceive them through physical means. First, if something is not physical, then you are not going to be able to perceive it physically period. Second, you make the mistake of declaring physical objects(concepts/ideas/mind) as not being physical. If just pointing out errors in thinking is annoying so be it.

Deep Sight: .
Not at all, you severly mangled the word "nature" in that conversation and badly conflated it with "reality". I thought it was quite horribly done, but simply grew tired, as i'm sure you did. I am still going to revert there, so look out for it; it will be an exhaustive but last attempt to enable you see how badly wrong it is to equate the concept of the word "natural" with "anything that exists" - that is a horribly off-the-mark notion, and I hope you will take the time to carefully read my response when I do.

You speak as if nature and reality are separate. Honestly, do you know a state of nature not consistent with reality? Can you make a statement about nature that is not also true about reality and vice versa? If the answer is yes then why the pretense that they are somehow fundamentally distinct. You have no other argument then to complain that you do not like my definition. It does not matter to me whether you like it or not. If you cannot actually show through argumentation that it is invalid, then it stands. I at least extended that courtesy to you by showing the fallacies and inconsistency in your own definition/reasoning.

Deep Sight: .
Can you answer me these questions -

1. You say that space and time are only concepts that exist in our minds, yes?

2. Does the Universe exist, independent of our minds, yea or nay?

3. Is there space in the universe?

4. Is there time in the universe?

5. Does the Universe exist within or outside space and time?

6. Does the Universe exist in our mind only as a concept?

7. If humans did not exist, would the universe still exist?

8. If humand did not exist, would there cease to be space and time in the universe?

1.Yes

2.As far as I can tell (through perception) existence of the Universe is independent of everyone else's mind. Since there is not a meaningful physical difference between my brain and anyone else brain I conclude deductively that it is true for me as well. I can of course never perceive a Universe where I do not exist. I can imagine one though.

3.The concept of space exist yes. In the brain.

4. The concept of time exist yes. In the brain.

5. We use/apply/connect/whatever the concepts to our conception of the Universe. But the Universe does not physically reside inside them. You can of course argue that part of the universe is physically inside them(between the neurons among other places) but I take it that is not what you mean.

6. We have a concept of the Universe, based upon/influenced by the actual Universe that we perceive physically.

7. See number 2

8. Other organism have concepts of space and time(animals). If they still exist than see number 7. Along that line, there can be multiple conceptions of time and space. So an individuals conception are tied to the mind/memories of the individuals and even media. Beyond that, these things never physically existed beyond the concepts.

The best way to put it is that there are some concepts that map directly to a physical object outside of the mind. Then there are other concepts(for a number of reasons) that do not. Take, concepts like the equator or borders. You can ask if all Humans ceased to exist would the equator or the borders of Nigeria cease to exist. I would answer that the borders never mapped to something that physically existed beyond ink on maps. In a similar fashion concepts of Time and Space do not map directly to physical objects.

Deep Sight: .
If clever, as I know you are, you will see how badly you are mangling things again. Your definition of time and space are violently unscientific, notwithstanding that you like to stand by science. Science does not describe space and time as mere concepts in our mind. Space and Time have scientific descriptions as physical things, as a construct of a fabric forming a continuum in which the universe is. We are only a tiny part thereof and it is absurd to imagine the super-construct not to exist if we were not here with our minds. Terribly and violently contradictory illogic actually. But I FEAR THAT AS WITH ALL THINGS, you will not see the glaring, the obvious.

The whole framework of science is an amalgamation of concepts based upon/applied to physical observation/objects. You are confusing our conceptions of Universe as physical objects that exist separately from our minds. The concepts are USED to describe observed physical objects/interactions. If you just asked a physicist about the time space continuum and gravity, you know what they would do? They would start with two physical objects called masses and describe how they physically interact with each other. They would then proceed to tell you how the mathematical concepts that belies the concept of time/space continuum perfectly DESCRIBES those interactions. They would then proceed to tell you how they used the concept to predict/study other kinds of physical objects/interactions.

Deep Sight: .
Well, since you like to stand by science, I will have you know that this is scientific harakiri. Absolutely false as per science. Current scientific thinking postulates the universe as xisting in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time forming a spacetime continuum. It does not postulate that this exists only in our heads - otherwise it would amount to postulating that the universe exists only in our heads. Please understand carefully that the fact that we develop concepts about things, does not mean that the things are the concepts or the concepts are the things.

Hardly. Recognizing that there is a distinction between our CONCEPTIONS of the Universe(response to observation) and the Universe(the thing/s we observe) is what I consider basic reasoning. Look at your vague reference space for example. Mathematical concept of vectors are a great example of what I am talking about. While they are useful for describing not to mention visualizing phenomenon they cannot be said to physically exist. NO scientist/mathematician/engineer would ever claim that vectors actually exist outside of the mathematical concept. Also,are you even aware that there are literally an infinite number of spacial coordinate systems that can validly and consistently be used to describe our physical observations.Do you believe that things such as vectors/coordinate systems physically exist outside the mind?

At the end of the day space and time are concepts that can/have been shown to be valid when applied to physical observations. Showing that a concept works with physical evidence is the basis of empiricism(the basis of science), which you seem to display so much contempt for.

I am beginning to see the the problem in this debate. As I see it, we both have two different notions of what it means to exist. I define existence in physical sense as being composed of energy/matter. At this point it is not clear how you define it. So I must ask, how do you define existence. Just what exactly do you mean when you say something that is not physical exist.

Deep Sight: .
No, it would be the universe. What makes you think anything that exists [u]outside]/u] this universe must be part of this universe. What if we have a multiverse?

Well, I define the Universe as everything that physically exist. If it is physical and it exist then it is part of the Universe.

Deep Sight: .
Nope, this is an assumption, because we do not know that any such thing is expanding - we do not even know what it is.

I would go further and say such knowledge would ever be accessible to us even your assertion that space physically exist and can expand were true.

God is not ά name. Rather its ά title given to any entity that is honoured as ά benefactor. That's why we have ά thousand Gods. If you now say ur own God is the strongest of all, well, that's ur own opinion. The main point is that there are ά thousand and one entities refered to as God

lekkie073: God is not ά name. Rather its ά title given to any entity that is honoured as ά benefactor. That's why we have ά thousand Gods. If you now say ur own God is the strongest of all, well, that's ur own opinion. The main point is that there are ά thousand and one entities refered to as God

Its like saying 'president'. The president of ghana and the president of usa are two presidents though one might be globally stronger than the other. That doesn't mean the weaker is not ά president.

Dear Mr. Idehn,

Thank you for your response. There is much to address in there, but some of them will require threads of their own - particularly the issue of time and space. I will not address that issue here, save to briefly state that you need to distinguish between our perceptions of things and the things themselves. We have a perception of time and space: this does not mean that neither time nor space exist outside our minds. If that were the case, there would be no universe, and consequently no "us" ab initio. Well no matter. We shall leave that for another day and another thread. However I am also beginning to see exactyly what you said that we may never have a consensus on anything because we simply see existence in different terms.

But neither time nor space are made of neurons in the human brain. It is our perception of time and space that may consist of neurons.

But no matter.

Let me simply be very concise here. Given the way you challenge the simplest words and phrases, let me present to you a definition for the word "God" which I hope will be so simple that you could not quibble about it. I am hoping that this definition will be simple enough for you to finally say - "Okay, that is simple and clear enough, so let's discuss if such exists."

Definition -

"God" - A being said to be the Creator of the Universe.

Is this definition clear and succint enough to form a basis for a discussion as to whether such exists?

In anticipating you, (as I fear that every word within the sentence in red italics above may suddenly become problematic for you), let me go a step further to extract relevant dictionary definitions for each word in that sentence.

"Being" - Definition of BEING

1
a: the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing (2): something that actually exists (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence : life

2
: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially: personality

3
: a living thing; especially: person

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being

For the purpose of this discussion, I believe Nos. 1(a) and 2 above are apt, as I do not wish to be drawn on the question of God being personal or impersonal, which I believe is neither here nor there concerning the question only of its existence.

"Creator" - Definition of CREATOR

: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being; especially capitalized: "God"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creator?show=0&t=1338912434

"Universe" - Definition of UNIVERSE

: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: as

a: a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power

b: the world of human experience

c (1): the entire celestial cosmos (2): milky way galaxy (3): an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universe

In the above, the definition of "Universe" apt for this discussion is C(1): i.e - "The entire celestial cosmos."

Mr. Idehn, in any normal discussion where "the discussants do not strive to deliberately misunderstand simple terms or concepts ordinarily, I would have had no need to trouble myself extracting the above definitions of the words "being", "creator" and "universe", and in some measure I hope you both appreciate the fact that I have taken the trouble to do this, as well as also understand exactly how tedious you have made discussions with you. It should have been simple enough for me to present the simple definition of God as "a being said to be the creator of the universe" - and the very fact that I have gone the length to define each word theirein and cited sources for each definition, is, I hope, instructive for you as to the way you have led discussions into becoming very difficult to proceed with, tedious, and ultimatley resulting in needless whirlppols of definitions of normally simple concepts.

So please in reverting to me on my question please take the above into consideration. If it is possible for you, please try not to turn this most simple definition into a nightmare from which no proper discussion on the existence or non-existence of such a creator can proceed. At all events, the sentence is so simple that if you do such, I will be content to leave things at that - as such would clearly prove my point to all and sundry indeed!

So here is the question again -

Do you accept this simplified definition of God -

"God" - A being said to be the creator of the universe -

- - - as a simple, clear and lucid enough definition on the basis of which a discussion regarding the existence or non-existence of such can proceed?

Many thanks.

Because you each know that every theist is speaking about a Creator.

And in pure logic, questions such as who created the creator is the creator good or evil, is the creator physical/nonphysical - are in reality tangential to the discussion. The pure question is if there is a creator of this universe. If there is, then the question is answered, whether it be created by something else, and whether it be good or evil, and whether it be physical or non-physical

The influence of morality on the god, might not be important, but being a caused creator diminishes his role as the explanation for the existence of everything. Cos behind most/common theist position lies an underlying assumption that nothing existed prior to something.

Therefore having the creator/god far off the end of the chain is no god.

Idehn is quite right, but given the number of times you in particular have tried to describe and define your god to me. I can't ask u everytime to redefine god at every thread.

Deep Sight: Dear Mr. Idehn,

Thank you for your response. There is much to address in there, but some of them will require threads of their own - particularly the issue of time and space. I will not address that issue here, save to briefly state that you need to distinguish between our perceptions of things and the things themselves. We have a perception of time and space: this does not mean that neither time nor space exist outside our minds. If that were the case, there would be no universe, and consequently no "us" ab initio. Well no matter. We shall leave that for another day and another thread. However I am also beginning to see exactyly what you said that we may never have a consensus on anything because we simply see existence in different terms.

I am distinguishing our perceptions/conceptions from the thing that is being perceived. The problem is that not all conceptions are of things that actually exist. Mathematical concepts such as vectors are prime examples of this. The mind is entirely composed the physical brain. The human mind is defined in its entirety by the sum total of object/processes that occur in physical nervous system the primary component being the human brain. I am not going to say minds cannot exist without physical bodies but I do know of any human that has encountered one. If you know such a mind then you should present it to the world. Moreover, if you are saying that time and space are not physical, you cannot turn around and define them entirely in terms of the physical. An thing that is not physical cannot be defined physically. You cannot have it both ways.

"God" - A being said to be the Creator of the Universe.

I think this is a good example of what I was talking. I suspect that underlying this definition is a gross form of equivocation. I see this definition thrown about like Universes are just assembled in the back of Universe factories. So I will focus on this before addressing anything else.

Do you consider an ipad a physical object?

Do you consider a the act of creating a physical object such as an ipad a physical or non physical action?

Do you require a physical body to create an ipad?

Do you agree that when you create something like an ipad requires physical objects such as matter and energy to create it?

What if I were hypothetically to say I created the Universe. From a cause and effect stand point would you say that the effect is that the Universe went from a state of physical non existence to a state of physical existence?

Idehn:

I am distinguishing our perceptions/conceptions from the thing that is being perceived. The problem is that not all conceptions are of things that actually exist. Mathematical concepts such as vectors are prime examples of this. The mind is entirely composed the physical brain. The human mind is defined in its entirety by the sum total of object/processes that occur in physical nervous system the primary component being the human brain. I am not going to say minds cannot exist without physical bodies but I do know of any human that has encountered one. If you know such a mind then you should present it to the world. Moreover, if you are saying that time and space are not physical, you cannot turn around and define them entirely in terms of the physical. An thing that is not physical cannot be defined physically. You cannot have it both ways.

This does not address that which i stated. I stated that time and space do not exist only in the human mind. I find your assertion to the contrary to be one of the greatest pieces of illogic and absurdity that I have ever read on this forum or indeed anywhere in the world. It is a piece of illogic that deletes the universe and you and I from reality. It far exceeds any statement made by my all time champions of illogic on this forum. Nevertheless we leave this as it is not the topic. Another day, another thread.

I think this is a good example of what I was talking. I suspect that underlying this definition is a gross form of equivocation. I see this definition thrown about like Universes are just assembled in the back of Universe factories. So I will focus on this before addressing anything else.

Do you consider an ipad a physical object?

Do you consider a the act of creating a physical object such as an ipad a physical or non physical action?

Do you require a physical body to create an ipad?

Do you agree that when you create something like an ipad requires physical objects such as matter and energy to create it?

What if I were hypothetically to say I created the Universe. From a cause and effect stand point would you say that the effect is that the Universe went from a state of physical non existence to a state of physical existence?

I think this sort of response more than justifies everything I complained about regarding you and definition games. It does not get any worse than this, and I am satisfied that the objective reader can now see what I complained of. This is terrible.

There is nothing you have written there that has anything to do with the definition i proffered to you. The definition said nothing about physical or non-physical. It said nothing about matter or energy or the presence or lack of either. It was bare and simple. I very deliberately left out tangible or intangible, created or uncreated, spiritual or physical, ex-nihilo or ex-materia. I gave it s simple as it gets and you revert with this. . . i dont know what to call it.

The summary of what you have raised is the question of creatio ex-nihilo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

With respect sir, I say to you that this has nothing as yet to do with the bare definition which I proffered to you.

This just shows how far ahead you wish to jump in your desperation to reject any definition of the very words "God" or "creation" - even just as definitions. For as must surely have been obvious, both creatio ex-nihilo and creatio ex-materia are further constructs which do nothing to tamper with the very basic definition I tossed up for your comfort. Neither precept impacts on that very simple definition. And if you had been a keen reader, you would have seen that even the bare dictionary definition of "creator" which i gave you already touched on these.

Creatio ex-nihilo refers to creation out of nothing whilst creatio ex-materia refers to creation out of some previously existing eternal substance. There is also the precept of creatio ex-deo which refers to creation from God's own substance. It is an entire area of philosophic discussion on its own, and should not be confused with the very basic definition of creator I gave you. For most Theists who subscribe to any of these, they either believe God created out of nothingness, or out of its own eternal substance. In all events we speak of an act of creation - be it out of nothing, or out of something. This is the reason I gave you a definition referring to God as the creator of this universe. I deliberately limited the definition to that because scientifically, this universe is all that we know. As such, even if there was pre-existing matter and God skips merrily along to therewith form the universe with such, that is an act of creation. This same was embodied even in the Merriam Webster dictionary definition which I gave you. Read it again.

As such you will see that there is no space for you to begin to raise this issue to tamper with the basic definition I gave you. The definition is as simple as it gets - it works as a definition of what entity is referred to as God. If in the further discussion, you wish to show any problems with ex-nihilo or ex-materia or creatio ex-deo precepts, you are free to do so.

But that does nothing to take away the fact that the definition suffices as a basis to point out what is meant by the term "God" in the context of such a discussion. Do you still insist that it is not?

The definition stands whether ex-nihilo or ex materia or ex deo are concerned - note that proof of any of these is NOT being adduced or articulated here. All that is being profferred is a definition of what the word "God" refers to.

For this, you CANNOT say that that is not a definition from which a discussion may proceed!

You really should reflect on this your way of going about things and ask yourself if you are interested in serious discussions or in wasteful pettyfogging. I hope you realize that with your approach, no two persons on this planet can have any discussion whatsoever, for the simple reason that every word will be meaninglessly challenged no matter how simple and clear its meaning is. I am particularly embarrased that not even the fact that I sadly had to set out dictionary definitions of each word in the definition was enough to stop you from your same approach which just makes no sense whatsoever.

I can only be satisfied that that which I have severally complained of has manifested itself yet again: namely that there is NO definition that you will not quibble about, no matter how simple it may be, and also that you will never discuss the God issue beyond playing the most incredibly petty word definition games. In that case I will strongly suggest to you that you desist from all discussions whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of God - given that in your view, there is no definition of the word whatsoever that can even be discussed at all.

But perhaps I am the one hitting my head against the wall here. This is afterall not the first time you are doing this. You do it repeatedly. Its very sad actually. Because the existence of God is such a huge subject and its shameful to be restricted to word definition games only. I am still amazed that you can look yourself in the mirror and claim that with specific regard to atheistic/ theistic discussions, you do not know that the word God refers to a being said to be the source or creator of all else that exist. Really surprised. I don't know how that level of dishonesty is possible.

Edit: Post editted to curb some frustrated expressions.
Edit Edit: This post has been extensively editted as first and second attempts were quite irritable.

As a synopsis of the foregoing post:

- Mr. Idehn generally states that there is no way to discuss God because there is no definition of the word "God" that one can work with

- I say that this is wrong. I give a simple definition as "A being said to be the Creator of the Universe"

- Mr. Idehn reverts inferring that if such a being did not create ex nihilo, then such a being is not creator.

- I say that all scenarios of creation - ex nihilo, ex materia and ex deo - are all instances of creation, and as such, none of the scenarios is sufficient to state that a being who formed the universe in any of the three scenarios, is not a creator. Merriam Webster agrees with me on this.

So there, Mr. Idehn. Is the definition provided not one that we can proceed to discuss - as to whether such a being exists or not?

Or we cannot discuss at all?

PS: If you will quibble further, I will be happy to qualify the definition further to suit your peculiar idiosyncracies. Until we get to the point where you admit the obvious. Namely that definitions exist, and pedantic debaters also exist - you are being one, sir.

Na wah.

Deep Sight:

This does not address that which i stated. I stated that time and space do not exist only in the human mind. I find your assertion to the contrary to be one of the greatest pieces of illogic and absurdity that I have ever read on this forum or indeed anywhere in the world. It is a piece of illogic that deletes the universe and you and I from reality. It far exceeds any statement made by my all time champions of illogic on this forum. Nevertheless we leave this as it is not the topic. Another day, another thread.

Once again another vacuous retort without a single counter argument. Coming from someone who subscribes to ancient aliens and oneness of infinity I am not at all moved. If you just want someone to complain to for having your pitiful immaterial nonsense rejected take it elsewhere. I do not care if you have no argument.

Deep Sight:
I think this sort of response more than justifies everything I complained about regarding you and definition games. It does not get any worse than this, and I am satisfied that the objective reader can now see what I complained of. This is terrible.

There is nothing you have written there that has anything to do with the definition i proffered to you. The definition said nothing about physical or non-physical. It said nothing about matter or energy or the presence or lack of either. It was bare and simple. I very deliberately left out tangible or intangible, created or uncreated, spiritual or physical, ex-nihilo or ex-materia. I gave it s simple as it gets and you revert with this. . . i dont know what to call it.

If you want to know the greatest piece of illogic and absurdity than reread the above. Seriously, after reading this I am actually embarrassed for you. How can you define something using the word Universe, and then turn around and say that the definition has nothing to do with energy, matter, and the physical? Either you have no idea what the Universe is composed of, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I can only hope it is the latter. It is like you are trying to define a word, while ignoring the meaning of the words you are defining it with. You may as well have defined the word computers, and complained that the definition has nothing to do with silicon or electricity and even that is being generous.

Deep Sight:
The summary of what you have raised is the question of creatio ex-nihilo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

With respect sir, I say to you that this has nothing as yet to do with the bare definition which I proffered to you.

This just shows how far ahead you wish to jump in your desperation to reject any definition of the very words "God" or "creation" - even just as definitions. For as must surely have been obvious, both creatio ex-nihilo and creatio ex-materia are further constructs which do nothing to tamper with the very basic definition I tossed up for your comfort. Neither precept impacts on that very simple definition. And if you had been a keen reader, you would have seen that even the bare dictionary definition of "creator" which i gave you already touched on these.

This is why I asked those questions. I have heard the teleological argument already and the subset arguments. Your definition stated and assumes that the Universe was created. The fact that you presented three interpretations of "creating a Universe" telling and why I asked for clarification. Which one do mean and are you going to throw verbose tantrums every time I ask for a clarification?

Deep Sight:
Creatio ex-nihilo refers to creation out of nothing whilst creatio ex-materia refers to creation out of some previously existing eternal substance. There is also the precept of creatio ex-deo which refers to creation from God's own substance. It is an entire area of philosophic discussion on its own, and should not be confused with the very basic definition of creator I gave you. For most Theists who subscribe to any of these, they either believe God created out of nothingness, or out of its own eternal substance. In all events we speak of an act of creation - be it out of nothing, or out of something. This is the reason I gave you a definition referring to God as the creator of this universe. I deliberately limited the definition to that because scientifically, this universe is all that we know. As such, even if there was pre-existing matter and God skips merrily along to therewith form the universe with such, that is an act of creation. This same was embodied even in the Merriam Webster dictionary definition which I gave you. Read it again.

Again you present multiple interpretations for "creating the Universe", and turn around complaining about me asking for clarification? Are you for real?

Deep Sight:
But that does nothing to take away the fact that the definition suffices as a basis to point out what is meant by the term "God" in the context of such a discussion. Do you still insist that it is not?

This is what I have been trying to ascertain before you went on with your ravings.


I do not think the rest of your rant is even worth acknowledging much less responding to so I will leave it at this. Which one do you mean when you say creator of the Universe? Ex Nihilo/Deo/materia. I swear, answering is a lot easier and faster than long winded rants. Honestly, you are making this a lot more painful, not to mention superfluous, than it has to be.

In fact I will say this. We can proceed to the discussion of existence if you are using the Ex deo(since it is actually physical definition).

Deep Sight:
I am still amazed that you can look yourself in the mirror and claim that [color=#990000]with specific regard to atheistic/ theistic discussions, you do not know that the word God refers to a being said to be the source or creator of all else that exist.

Deep Sight: "God" - A being said to be the creator of the universe

Everyone knows that god is said to be the creator of the universe and whatnot but what you refuse to understand is that, once the theist is asked to expatiate, the already flimsy concept of god is shown to be irrational e.g "unembodied mind", "eternal conciousness", "extraphysical that can't be explained", "oneness of infinity", "spirit", "non physical", "inherent existence","supernatural", etc etc so the weary atheists just yawn.

Idehn:

Once again another vacuous retort without a single counter argument.

Yes I did indicate that I PREFER not to argue that issue here as it is not the topic. It would severly derail our already difficult discussion. If you don't mind, i could set up a thread specifically for it and we take it slowly there.

Your notion that time and space exist only in the mind is patently unscientific and indeed illogical.

If you confirm you are willing, I shall open a thread to address this.

Coming from someone who subscribes to ancient aliens and oneness of infinity I am not at all moved.

You really need to stop these ad hominems. The fact that I may beleive in Santa Claus will not make me wrong if reject your claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

By the way, I opened a thread to examine the possibility of ancient extra-terrestial activity. I don't see anything insultable in so doing. Nor do i see same in a belief in the source of all existence being ONE AND ETERNAL. Because that is the summary of the one and the infinite. It rebounds on you all who continually behave like the term is something inherently ridiculous or novel. And it is worse to continuously have to hold that as some sort of trump card for abuse. Grow up man!

If you want to know the greatest piece of illogic and absurdity than reread the above. Seriously, after reading this I am actually embarrassed for you. How can you define something using the word Universe, and then turn around and say that the definition has nothing to do with energy, matter, and the physical? Either you have no idea what the Universe is composed of, or you are being intentionally obtuse. I can only hope it is the latter. It is like you are trying to define a word, while ignoring the meaning of the words you are defining it with. You may as well have defined the word computers, and complained that the definition has nothing to do with silicon or electricity and even that is being generous.

Well the misunderstanding here will rest in your analogy. God is not said by the theist to be composed of the universe, like in your computer example. That is the preserve of the pantheist. God is said to be the creator of the universe. As such, instead of being embarrased for me, you need to settle down and be keen enough to recognise that the definition gave is about the creator of the computer, (using your computer example) and NOT a definition of the computer itself. This will be like saying that every definition of the man Idehn must include a narrative of the specific physical nature of all the things he has invented.

As such, still staying with your example, let us say, as a crude analogy, that Bill Gates creates a computer. Someone is now trying to identify Bill Gates to another person. He says - Bill Gates is the man who created the Computer.

Tell me, Mr. Idehn, will we now have to resort to the components of the computer such as micro-chips, silicon and what have you, in describing WHAT the human-being Bill Gates is? ? ? ? Absolutely not: because Bill Gates is not Silicon, in the same way as the Theist does not say God is the Universe. It is the Pantheist that says that.

The Universe is all that we see, and with reference to the commencement of a discussion on the existence of God, we simply say to you as a definition only and not as proof - that we speak of a being said to have created the Universe. We do not seek to describe the components of the universe, at least, not as yet: we seek to assert that the universe was created by a pre-existent: in proof, we may discuss, but in definition only, this stands.

I hope this is clear for you now.

This is why I asked those questions. I have heard the teleological argument already and the subset arguments. Your definition stated and assumes that the Universe was created. The fact that you presented three interpretations of "creating a Universe" telling and why I asked for clarification. Which one do mean and are you going to throw verbose tantrums every time I ask for a clarification?

Again you present multiple interpretations for "creating the Universe", and turn around complaining about me asking for clarification? Are you for real?

This is what I have been trying to ascertain before you went on with your ravings.

I do not think the rest of your rant is even worth acknowledging much less responding to so I will leave it at this. Which one do you mean when you say creator of the Universe? Ex Nihilo/Deo/materia. I swear, answering is a lot easier and faster than long winded rants. Honestly, you are making this a lot more painful, not to mention superfluous, than it has to be.

In fact I will say this. We can proceed to the discussion of existence if you are using the Ex deo(since it is actually physical definition).

Thank you for this. I would agree with proceeding with creatio ex deo. But I should at the outset warn that it is not necessarily as you have stated a "physical" definition. But that is too far up the ladder. I will be muddying things up if I go there now, and knowing you, i wouldn't want that to take us another year to define. Infact, forget I said it. Let's leave that for now.

I give reasons for going with creatio ex deo.

- I do not believe in creatio ex nihilo because in my definition of nothingness, nothingness being nothing, does not exist at all

- I do not believe in creatio ex materia because I do not regard matter as eternal in the past, it not bearing the qualities of self-existent things. (Although I should carefully note that ex materia does not necessarily refer to matter but generally to any eternally existing substance.)

So, Mr. Idehn, are we finally at a consensus that we can now discuss the existence or non-existence of God based on this definition of God -

- - - "A being said to have created the universe ex deo.

Confirm please. Thanks.

Martian:

Everyone knows that god is said to be the creator of the universe and what not

Really? Mr. Idehn could have had me thinking that everyone does not know that this is what God is said to be . . . or that there is confusion or ambiguity about whether or not that is the notion of God that people generally have. . .

but what you refuse to understand is that, once the theist is asked to expatiate, the already flimsy concept of god is shown to be irrational e.g "unembodied mind", "eternal conciousness", "extraphysical that can't be explained", "oneness of infinity", "spirit", "non physical", "inherent existence","supernatural", etc etc so the weary atheists just yawn.

Funnily enough, we are not even discussing the "expatiation" as yet. . . we are still grappling to define the word to be discussed. . . .

Deep Sight:

Really? Mr. Idehn could have had me thinking that everyone does not know that this is what God is said to be . . . or that there is confusion or ambiguity about whether or not that is the notion of God that people generally have. . .
Funnily enough, we are not even discussing the "expatiation" as yet. . . we are still grappling to define the word to be discussed. . . .

Well, you will and when you do, it will be still be based on your particular biases. The generic definition is well known, so stop hiding behind that. Apart from that vague definition, anyone who attempts to explain god based on their own biases will end up with "unembodied brains minds" and the likes.

Martian:

Well, you will and when you do, it will be still be based on your particular biases. The generic definition is well known, so stop hiding behind that. Apart from that vague definition, anyone who attempts to explain god based on their own biases will end up with "unembodied brains minds" and the likes.

Might I specifically ask you what your problem is with the term "unembodied mind"?

I believe it is your view that minds can only exist within the context of a physical brain, yes?

Now what does the physical brain consist of, my dear friend? Is it not an agglomeration of infinitesimal microscopic cells, neurons, synapses etc?

If this is the case, then it must be agreed, at least on a conceptual level, that we can conceive of a mind being "bodied" within the smallest conceivable, even invisible element, no?

iF SO, why can there not - conceptually - exist a mind that is "bodied" across all the microscopic elements trans-universe.

It is afterall already known that minds can interact in waves.

That would be an unembodied mind to the extent that it is not "bodied" in one single definite creature, no?

Let's start with this. . . . ?

Deep Sight:
Might I specifically ask you what your problem is with the term "unembodied mind"?
I believe it is your view that minds can only exist within the context of a physical brain, yes?

Agreed.

Deep Sight:
Now what does the physical brain consist of, my dear friend? Is it not an agglomeration of infinitesimal microscopic cells, neurons, synapses etc?

If this is the case, then it must be agreed, at least on a conceptual level, that we can conceive of a mind being "bodied" within the smallest conceivable, even invisible element, no?

Not it MUST not be agreed. It' just your opinion. What you neglect to mention is that the agglomeration of microscopic cells will form tissues and tissues will form an organ and that organ is the source of our mind.
What you are proposing is an invicible collection of cells that make up an "unembodied mind"..............
Besides, you can't just redefine nature in order to fit your sentiments. We know what a brain consist of and you are just extrapolating that knowledge for the description of your god,just like the personal god is an extrapolation of a human.

The funny thing is that what you're trying so hard to avoid is to call god a "spirit" like most theists because you know that describing what a spirit is, is an exercise in futility. So "unembodied" seems safe.

Un`em`bod´ied
a. 1. Free from a corporeal body; disembodied; as, unembodied spirits.

Yes I did indicate that I PREFER not to argue that issue here as it is not the topic. It would severly derail our already difficult discussion. If you don't mind, i could set up a thread specifically for it and we take it slowly there.

Your notion that time and space exist only in the mind is patently unscientific and indeed illogical.

If you confirm you are willing, I shall open a thread to address this.

It absurd for you to even pretend to wear the guise of science and logic on this matter. You are the one claiming that concepts/ideas/minds are things that are not physical. By claiming something is not physical you alienate it complete from realm of science which is after all a study of the physical universe. My claim is simply that concepts/ideas/memories are physical objects defined as specific organization of neurons that physically exist. The mind is the sum total of these objects which we call the physical brain which can be studied by science. To describe them in terms of biological terms and not some vague mercurial pseudo state of existence does not take away from there meaningfulness/utility anymore than it does for things like emotions. There is an entire field dedicated to the study of such thingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience. Get real(literally and figuratively) deepsight. You are the only one making unscientific and illogical claims here.

You really need to stop these ad hominems. The fact that I may beleive in Santa Claus will not make me wrong if reject your claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

By the way, I opened a thread to examine the possibility of ancient extra-terrestial activity. I don't see anything insultable in so doing. Nor do i see same in a belief in the source of all existence being ONE AND ETERNAL. Because that is the summary of the one and the infinite. It rebounds on you all who continually behave like the term is something inherently ridiculous or novel. And it is worse to continuously have to hold that as some sort of trump card for abuse. Grow up man!

Except that I have been saying 2 + 2 = 4 the whole time. I will stop the ad hominems and thinly veiled insults if you stop.

Well the misunderstanding here will rest in your analogy. God is not said by the theist to be composed of the universe, like in your computer example. That is the preserve of the pantheist. God is said to be the creator of the universe. As such, instead of being embarrased for me, you need to settle down and be keen enough to recognise that the definition gave is about the creator of the computer, (using your computer example) and NOT a definition of the computer itself. This will be like saying that every definition of the man Idehn must include a narrative of the specific physical nature of all the things he has invented.

As such, still staying with your example, let us say, as a crude analogy, that Bill Gates creates a computer. Someone is now trying to identify Bill Gates to another person. He says - Bill Gates is the man who created the Computer.

Tell me, Mr. Idehn, will we now have to resort to the components of the computer such as micro-chips, silicon and what have you, in describing WHAT the human-being Bill Gates is? ? ? ? Absolutely not: because Bill Gates is not Silicon, in the same way as the Theist does not say God is the Universe. It is the Pantheist that says that.

The Universe is all that we see, and with reference to the commencement of a discussion on the existence of God, we simply say to you as a definition only and not as proof - that we speak of a being said to have created the Universe. We do not seek to describe the components of the universe, at least, not as yet: we seek to assert that the universe was created by a pre-existent: in proof, we may discuss, but in definition only, this stands.

I hope this is clear for you now.

I have never had the pleasure of saying this before, but I believe what you did here was called a straw man fallacy.

Let me put what I was talking about simply with this example. "Group A" is defined by "X" "Y" and "Z". "Nabla" is defined as something that acts on "Group A". If, you were to say "Nabla" has nothing to do with "X" you would be completely wrong. Otherwise in the definition of the word "Nabla", one could not possibly be referring to the same "Group A" that I just defined.

You defined God as something(not clear if that thing is physical or not) acts on(created) the Universe. The Universe is defined as the sum total of energy and matter(which are further defined as physical objects) that exist. You cannot possibly be talking about the same Universe if you say and I qoute,"The definition said nothing about physical or non-physical. It said nothing about matter or energy or the presence or lack of either.". Of course it did. You used the word Universe right? You agree that the Universe is DEFINED by matter and energy? Matter and energy are physical right?

But addressing your straw man, the same goes for Bill Gates. If you had said that the definition of Bill Gates has nothing to do with silicon and electricity it would still be wholly false. It may not be relevant to a particular discussion, but to claim that those things are not part of /have nothing to do with his definition is wrong. You could not possibly be referring to the software(windows) that made him rich, if you claim his definition has nothing to do with silicon and electricity. As we all know windows operates on PC's(computers), which among other things uses CPUs(transistors), which are composed of silicon and rely on electricity to work. But of course that is not what you actually did. What you did is more like you defined Bill Gates as being a human and proceeded to say that the definition said nothing about eyes,noses, and ears. And I am supposedly the one playing definition games.

What you tried to do was nothing short of ignoring the meaning of the words you used to define God.

Thank you for this. I would agree with proceeding with creatio ex deo. But I should at the outset warn that it is not necessarily as you have stated a "physical" definition. But that is too far up the ladder. I will be muddying things up if I go there now, and knowing you, i wouldn't want that to take us another year to define. Infact, forget I said it. Let's leave that for now.

I give reasons for going with creatio ex deo.

- I do not believe in creatio ex nihilo because in my definition of nothingness, nothingness being nothing, does not exist at all

- I do not believe in creatio ex materia because I do not regard matter as eternal in the past, it not bearing the qualities of self-existent things. (Although I should carefully note that ex materia does not necessarily refer to matter but generally to any eternally existing substance.)

I was willing to accept the Ex deo definition because it seemed to imply that God was composed of the same substance as the Universe(energy and matter). If that had been the case, then saying God exist could actually be a meaningful statement. At this point I must ask, if you are defining God as being physical(composed of matter/energy) or non-physical(composed of nothing)? Please do not try to say this not relevant. It is as relevant as matter and energy is to the definition of Universe. This question is even more important, because it sounds like from your conversation with Martian about "unembodied mind" there is more to your definition of God than you are actually stating.

It is also interesting how you use nothing here and as such I have a question. Hypothetically speaking, if I said that numbers were composed of nothing would you say they exist? If I said that concepts were composed of nothing would you say they exist? If I said the mind was composed of nothing would you say it exist? I answered your questions so I would appreciate you answering mine.

hisblud: hi anon, did you mean "less" or "more" to the bolded word-MORE!

Yeah I meant "more". I was saying that The creator should be more complex than the creation

Idehn:

Time and causality are not separable. In your own definition of causality, you had to make use of the concept of time which is very telling. In lieu of your definition of causality, claiming that the first cause is beyond/outside/whatever of time does not make any sense. Every single part of the sequence necessarily operates within the framework of time. Otherwise, you are not really talking about causality but something else entirely.

Also if you have not problem with time being infinite then you have no problem with infinite number of causes. After all, each step occupies a specific point in time. An infinite timeline would imply/necessitate an infinite number of causes.




This is incorrect/inaccurate. It is more appropriate to describe time(in a scientific sense) as a conceptual metric/framework. The way we measure time may be arbitrary but consistency of measurement is the primary goal. Looking at your example, it is amount of time it takes for us to perceive an event that is changing not the metric. What sense would it make if the thing by which we are measuring change is itself in flux? The metric by which we are measuring should not change(aside from coordinate transforms). It would be as incorrect as saying that since the speed of light increased the distance between the sun and earth got shorter.




I think you are under a gross misapprehension of Big B.ang theory. I know that it is often presented by some as being the "the beginning of time", but it does not make any claims about what came before the singularity(or if there was even a before). Claims on what came before or if there was a before are all purely speculative at the moment.



Your argument is purely speculative and is not actually based on Big B.ang Theory. You are treating space as some kind of physical object that exist outside of the physical brain. It is concept. It is like the equator or borders of nations. They do not physically exist beyond lines on maps or concepts in our nervous system. Asking what space the universe is expanding into is not a meaningful question. Space is the metric by which we measure the size of the universe(in this case volume).

Like I said before no one knows the state of the Universe prior to the singularity. No one even knows why matter is more prevalent in the Universe than anti matter. I am not sure what you mean by definite and precise chunks of matter. Are you saying it should have been something else? If so how do you know this. To your last question, the vast majority of the Universe does not infact support life. As far as we can tell Earth and possibly Mars are the only places we know with life in the Universe.



The intelligence aspect of all organism we currently know(animals) originates from a nervous system (the brain). The brain and all its inner working are complex. While we do not completely understand the brain, I can assure you that if you "Remove all neurons" than Idehn and Mr Anony will definitely not think of the color red again.


Where your software analogy is flawed, is that you fail to recognize that even software is physically stored (specifically in memory). It exist physically as an organization of electron/protons/neutrons(transistors). Disrupt certain components of this organization and you have compromised the software(panics/crashes). In the biological sense, neurons are to transistors as mind is to software. Even I am forced however to recognize that this is a very crude analysis. So yes, both the mind and software are physical objects.



Yes pattern recognition is a strong indication of intelligence. Namely our own. The ability to recognize a pattern does not necessarily imply design/intent. Also it does/did not seem like you are/were just saying it could have turned out differently. It seems/ed like you are/were saying that it should have been different. I want to know how you come to this conclusion if that is in fact what you are saying.




You are not getting my point at all. The virtual world has to be nothing like ours. Try this though experiment. Try to imagine a world that is nothing like the world we live. Not one physical aspect of it can be the same. Were you able to do this? That is what you must do when you posit something that the concepts of time and space do not and cannot be applied to. For everything you know, you can and must be able
apply these to key concepts to.



On another note it is clear(from an engineering perspective), what it means to design/create something like supercomputer. It is even clear what it means to design/create a virtual experience based upon our own. You are physically reorganizing what already exist in the universe into a specific pattern that (for the most part) operates as intended. That is the core of what it means to design/create. After all, we do not create super computers from nothing and they are designed based upon principles obtained through observation of nature. It is not at all clear what you mean when you say "create/design" a Universe. Especially when you appeal to things that exist outside the conceptual framework of time/space which informs every aspect of the meaning of the words create and design.

Again your parable is completely in appropriate. It would be like trying to design virtual Universe outside the framework of space and time. How do you possibly do such a thing when every single thing we know/do is tied to the concepts of space and time? The concepts would invariably permeate the design whether you wanted it to or not.




Your teleological argument just does not give any clear,meaningful, and coherent definition for God. Without such a definition, it is pointless to talk about God this and God that.

Hmm, it seems I've been gone a bit too long and there's a lot I may have replied but for the most part, Deep Sight echoes my thoughts. i think the thread has long moved past this reply.
Something I have noticed however is that you seem (or rather it seems to me that you are)convinced that no matter what, the physical is all that there is or can possibly be and you reject anything that might transcend space-time no matter how it is presented, you call it meaningless and defend your stance much like one would his faith.
The fact that you even go as far as to physicalize* things such as a mind and intelligence and then conceptualize finite things that can be measured such as space and Nigeria's boundaries makes it hard to properly discuss with you.
I noticed that you had to "force" God to fit into your physicality* else he is meaningless to you, this just makes me weary. It's a bit like saying red green and purple are the only colors I know, that must exist and hence to tell me about color blue, you must define it in terms of red green and purple or else blue is meaningless.
You see how tedious discussing with you becomes? Hence, I leave you to continue.

^^^ No be today, see here: https://www.nairaland.com/715030/find-existence-god-threatening/1#8765354

Why do we have to accept that the Universe was created? Upon that answer, a Creator becomes necessary.

^^^ Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things,including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is the fact that all living things were created by the All-Wise and Almighty God. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which claims that living things are the products of coincidental causes and natural processes.

Here we go again. This is getting really boring Frosbel.