Logicboy03:

There is no such thing as a physical being? I see Joshthefirst has educated you on willful ignorance

Deep Sight:

Yes indeed, we are twisting plaetton's very sensible point of view -

As he contends - - ->

1. The mind being subjective, the five senses cannot be trusted to disclose objective realities.

2. He yet uses science, which relies entirely on the mind and the five senses, to seek and preach objective realities.

Ah. Comedy a la carte!

Logicboy03:

There is no such thing as a physical being?

Something has to be eternal either way
-If you believe in God as the origin- he is eternal. If God is something....then something is eternal
-If you dont believe in God, you would have to contend with an infinite regress of the past.

The big bang doesnt go against an infinte past- all it does is give a timeline of this universe. Millions of things could come before our universe....Simple common sense.

Is this a valid rebuttal to the comment about the non-physicality of your God?

My thoughts are a result of a physical organ in my body called the brain.

A thought is not a part of my body.

Logicboy03:



I am Logicboy, not Plaetton....if you and Joshthelast have anything you disagree with about Plaetton's arguments, take it up with him....


like seriously, must theists be dubious on NL?

Joshthefirst:

Take it easy sir, he's your son after all.

Logicboy03:

A thought is not a part of [size=16pt]my[/size] body.

Mr Troll: DS, can we go back and start again from your first reply? you and LB silliness don derail the thread go far. it is now confusing me sef

Deep Sight:

O yes there is not.

And of course, the significance of my placing the words in distinct colors would naturally be lost on your leathery and well fortified mind.

It is not something I can take up with you, anymore than I can take up astrophysics with a 2 day old baby.

"Physical Being"



A little thought on your own very words herein quoted should be sufficient to cure you of your atheistic delusions.



And yet - not a shred, bah?

The millions of things, which, by the way, you infer by assumption also, bah?



The cause of that which is physical could not logically also be physical otherwise it is not the cause of physicality - because, in case you missed that, dumbo, that would mean that physicality already existed.

As such, if matter is held to be caused, as suggested by the ToBB; its cause could not be physical.



And it makes these decisions to think for its own enjoyment?

Can you make yourself think, or not?



[size=30pt]WHOA! ! ! ! !

STOP PRESS ! ! ! ! ! ! [/size]

Deep Sight:


And yet - not a shred, bah?

The millions of things, which, by the way, you infer by assumption also, bah?

Deep Sight:
Honestly, if people would just settle down and excercise their grey matter on just a little thinking.

Look again at this statement - - - >



Can anyone see the multiple degrees of denial of materialist atheism contained in these few and simple words?




- - - > LB: Can you tell me why you use the word "my" there - - - > and what does that word connote, what does it per force infer?

Deep Sight:
^^^

Google?

Lol.

Ol' boy, bone jaare.

Logicboy03:

Is a simple sentence hard to understand? Thoughts are not part of the body.

Deep Sight: What makes anyone think that God, if it exists, is, or should be either moral or immoral, in the human sense?

Is God, if it exists, expected to be a human being?

If you say that God does not exist, fine. But if you agree that God, if it exists, would not be a human being, then why ascribe human moral standards to it, or judge it by human morailty?

When a lion kills lion cubs in taking over a pride, do you accuse him of murder and then sentence him to the electric chair? You do not. Why? Because he is not human and has a different moral paradigm, if any at all.

You consider the lion lower than you. You agree that God, if it exists, would be higher than you. If you cannot judge that which is lower based on your human standards of morailty, how can you judge that which is higher based on your human standards of morality.

Think again.

Deep Sight:

1. So you accept that some elements of you (thoughts) are not part of your material body.

2. Why have you moved from "my" body, to "the" body?

Could it be that you see the proprietary claim involved therein.

And o, before you say that "proprietary" is a "big" word, it simply denotes ownership.

And so when you say - my body - - - >

This shows that you recognize yourself as a being that owns a body.

Mr Troll: I assume you knew that the OP was specifically talking about the religious gods? most probably the Abrahamic versions? still, considering that you are a deist, i'll proceed with the assumption that you are using the term in the deistic sense.

and therefore god, if he exists should have no business with trying to dictate our morality or trying to judge us based on our own subjective morality.

in reality, I don't think YOU should be making this argument...except you will agree that your god is neither good nor evil(which by the way is what we refer to as nature. )

if we cannot or should not judge the lion we consider lower than us then god, if he exists should not judge us. or do you think he should?

Study case/ Small example: A Park Ranger watches over prides of lions in a natural park. He observes a lion killing lion cubs as he takes over a pride. He knows that this is natural for lions. He does nothing about it. However another day he observes a lion killing every single lion that it comes across - male, female, cub - whether of his own pride or not. He knows that this is not natural for lions. He enters the natural park, removes the lion behaving as such, and kills it. Has he acted rightly or wrongly. What are your thoughts, what may be gleaned from this study case/ small example?

Deep Sight:

Even the Abrahamic God escapes your reach of judgment so long as he is not considered to be a human being.



Does God "dictate" your morality?

Is it not the case, in fact, that you have just opened a thread where you argue that human interests dictate morality?

As such, your morality is not "dictated" by God, if it exists, is it?

It rather comes from your own mind, does it not?

God, if it exists, would be far too transcendental for me or anyone to circumscribe as moral or immoral in the human sense.

1. God, if it exists, would be higher than us.

3. As we, being higher than the lion, know that which is natural to it - - - >

4. God, if it exists, could know that which is natural to us.


In assessing this study case/ small example I have placed above, please remember that the key point is judging a non-human by human morals. As such, if we were to judge lions, we cannot judge them by human morals, can we? We can judge them by "lion morals" however.

So long as we know these "lion morals"

If God exists, it would be higher than human - and therefore know human morals (especially if it is the creator of humans), and be in a position to judge us by human morals.

Mr Troll:
Now in your example, it will require the park ranger to absolutely know everything there is to know about the behavior of lions (omnixxxxx) which of course is next to impossible. we could say that the park ranger has done right, but what is to say that the lion, by some pristine 'lion instinct' has detected the presence of a deadly virus in the lions it saw and therefore decided to eliminate them to prevent its spread in this case, the park ranger will have inadvertently caused more harm than good. for any being to fully be in a position judge absolutely correctly the morals of any other being not related to it, then it will have to be totally knowledgeable about it, which brings us to the omniscience question....

Deep Sight:

And the position of God, if it exists, as creator, resolves your conundrum.

Mr Troll: and bring another conundrum of omniscience and freewill?

Edit: except its not sentient?

Deep Sight: What makes anyone think that God, if it exists, is, or should be either moral or immoral, in the human sense?

Is God, if it exists, expected to be a human being?

If you say that God does not exist, fine. But if you agree that God, if it exists, would not be a human being, then why ascribe human moral standards to it, or judge it by human morailty?

When a lion kills lion cubs in taking over a pride, do you accuse him of murder and then sentence him to the electric chair? You do not. Why? Because he is not human and has a different moral paradigm, if any at all.

You consider the lion lower than you. You agree that God, if it exists, would be higher than you. If you cannot judge that which is lower based on your human standards of morailty, how can you judge that which is higher based on your human standards of morality.

Think again.

Ishilove: So sick of all these kinds of threads

Joshthefirst: Gods plan was man fellowshipping with him.

God did not plan mans fall. God foresaw man's fall and planned for a saviour.

Deep Sight:

I see the error everywhere: where people conflate knowing what you will do, with being the one to have made you do it.

Even you, a mere mortal, know some people so well, that you can accurately predict their reaction to certain situations. This does not mean that you dictated those reactions. Mere mortal human parents would often accurately predict what their children would do. Because they know the child very well.

Therefore saying that God has such a transcendent view of every component of your being, that it knows what you will do, is not the same thing as saying that it made you do it, or that it was not your choice, to do it.

Nor does this obviate the need for your own experiencing within the world: otherwise you would not be what you are.

Deep Sight:

Yes indeed, we are twisting plaetton's very sensible point of view -

As he contends - - ->

1. The mind being subjective, the five senses cannot be trusted to disclose objective realities.

2. He yet uses science, which relies entirely on the mind and the five senses, to seek and preach objective realities.

Ah. Comedy a la carte!

plaetton:

You are a big liar Deepsight.
Stop this nonsense. .

This habit of twisting people's post to suit yourself is becoming entrenched in your system.
You were never like this.
On this very issue, I corrected you more than 5 times, yet you continue to spew the same lie over and over again.
What gives?

Frankly , I am losing respect for you.
That may not mean much to you, but it means much to me.

Let me repeat it one ore time, in case your are deaf and dumb.

Subjective interpretation of an image(not an object) cannot be reliable simply because different minds would offer different subjective interpretations.
That is so simple, so elementary and so commonsensical .

Mr Troll: Oh! DS, pls don't toe the Ihedinobi path. He made us too, didn't he? every component of our being?

Kay 17: Isn't it obvious from DeepSight's threads and posts that he sees a divine will in the Universe because of the meaning it implies. In other words, Deepsight creates his God because of the meaning he seeks thereof.

Hence a psychological conditioning

Kay 17: Isn't it obvious from DeepSight's threads and posts that he sees a divine will in the Universe because of the meaning it implies. In other words, Deepsight creates his God because of the meaning he seeks thereof.

Hence a psychological conditioning

Deep Sight:

You are only becoming erratic because you cannot stand the the glaring ludicrousness of your argument.

It was scandalously exposed with your example of the "leaf" and when you used the faculty of sight to derive objective truths about it.

Never mind that you argued same faculty to be subjective.

You were so unguarded and without rigor that I never even bothered to point out to you that you even derived an objective truth about the color of the leaf - forgetting color blindness, and the fact that different creatures see different spectra of light, and thus, never the same colors. Yet you derived an objective truth about the leaf being green. That was unpardonably lazy and careless, and yet you sit here to cry about losing respect for people.

Please lose every iota of respect you have for me very fast, and let none remain at all - so that I may be spared this emotional cry of losing respect all the time. It's nonsense to me mate.

Kay 17: Isn't it obvious from DeepSight's threads and posts that he sees a divine will in the Universe because of the meaning it implies. In other words, Deepsight creates his God because of the meaning he seeks thereof.

Hence a psychological conditioning