Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

well how does God, fit in with the Big Bang?

---

My own little theory is that God Caused, the Big Bang.
Post whatever but please base what your saying if its factual, on some sort of FACT

If you accept that god the First Cause and simply existed, then why couldn't the universe be a First Cause and simply exist?

There is no "factual" about god or the big bang. You can't prove either exists.

Evidence for big bang>>>>evidence for god.

Originally posted by One Free Man
There is no "factual" about god or the big bang. You can't prove either exists.

There is a difference here.

We have no scientific evidence whatsoever that god exists.

We have valid scientific theories and evidence that suggest the big bang or something similar, did happen.

But we do have scientific evidence that proves the bible, the word of god, to be true.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
But we do have scientific evidence that proves the bible, the word of god, to be true.

Please show us...

Originally posted by Mairuzu
But we do have scientific evidence that proves the bible, the word of god, to be true.

Well, some parts of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well, some parts of it.

...which is to be expected, given its length.

....

In response to the thread starter:

The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.

To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.

The Big Bang represents our best current understanding of the origins of the universe, and can be considered a valid scientific belief until contradictory or supplementary evidence is discovered. The power of science lies in its ability to self-correct over time, its adherence to logic, its admittance of our areas of ignorance (instead of trying to fill such voids with nonsense), and its lack of dogmatism. I believe (not unconditionally, mind you) that the Big Bang happened, and I believe in no god. That's my answer to the two areas of the thread's title.

Originally posted by Digi
...which is to be expected, given its length.

And that some parts are simply letters sent early Christian churches.


Originally posted by Digi
To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.

That's Deism or Gnosticism isn't it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's Deism or Gnosticism isn't it?

Possibly some of both, and certainly the former (I'm not as familiar with Gnosticism). Honestly, my description of the non-interactive god/force could fit into many kinds of agnostic or spiritual-but-not-religious worldviews.

I must respect such a position intellectually, because it is logically untouchable with our current knowledge, but it's always seemed to me like a cop-out....something for believe who recognize the lack of evidence, whether they admit it or not, but still feel the need for a spiritual crutch. I realize I'm generalizing, and exceptions could easily be found, but I'm basing it on my experience with such arguments and the people who use them.

Originally posted by Digi
I must respect such a position intellectually, because it is logically untouchable with our current knowledge...

There are several good arguments against the Cosomological argument.

I mentioned one up a few posts. If a person accepts the premise of a first cause, it does not necessarily follow that such a cause must be intelligent or supernatural.

From that premise alone, the universe itself could be a first cause, because if you accept that there must be a first cause, it does not demand that a cause be intelligent.

Originally posted by magicturtle
well how does God, fit in with the Big Bang?

---

My own little theory is that God Caused, the Big Bang.
Post whatever but please base what your saying if its factual, on some sort of FACT i agree with that

Originally posted by Digi
...which is to be expected, given its length.

....

In response to the thread starter:

The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.

To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.

The Big Bang represents our best current understanding of the origins of the universe, and can be considered a valid scientific belief until contradictory or supplementary evidence is discovered. The power of science lies in its ability to self-correct over time, its adherence to logic, its admittance of our areas of ignorance (instead of trying to fill such voids with nonsense), and its lack of dogmatism. I believe (not unconditionally, mind you) that the Big Bang happened, and I believe in no god. That's my answer to the two areas of the thread's title. thanks for the opinion. i believe otherwise though

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
thanks for the opinion. i believe otherwise though

thanks for the opinion. i believe otherwise though

Originally posted by Ordo
thanks for the opinion. i believe otherwise though

Damn it, you beat me too it.

*Shares his glory with Shakya*

Originally posted by Autokrat

We have valid scientific theories and evidence that suggest the big bang or something similar, did happen. Well, then, I leave the burden of proof too you. Educate us. What valid scientific evidence do we have? No theories please, theories are of little use in this sort of thing, as anything can be a "theory of great scientific importance".

I know the story of the big bang. Give me the evidence.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Well, then, I leave the burden of proof too you. Educate us. What valid scientific evidence do we have? No theories please, theories are of little use in this sort of thing, as anything can be a "theory of great scientific importance".

I know the story of the big bang. Give me the evidence.

The expanding universe.

Originally posted by Ordo
thanks for the opinion. i believe otherwise though

Originally posted by magicturtle
well how does God, fit in with the Big Bang?

---

My own little theory is that God Caused, the Big Bang.
Post whatever but please base what your saying if its factual, on some sort of FACT

Some say God spoke the universe into existence and the Big Bang was how He did it. (whatever sound occured was His voice and words, and any explosions/creations were done by the will of what He was saying).

I say the main thing God and the Big Bang share is that they're both regarded as theories.

God isn't a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Well, then, I leave the burden of proof too you. Educate us. What valid scientific evidence do we have? No theories please, theories are of little use in this sort of thing, as anything can be a "theory of great scientific importance".

I know the story of the big bang. Give me the evidence.

No theories?

Ok, guess what. There is no gravity, plate tectonics, relativity, or any other kind of theory.

Because apparently like so many others I have argued with on this, you attempt to change the definition of what a scientific theory is.

And of course the most obvious example is the ever expanding universe. Considering I'm not a physicist, I can't explain to you in minute mathematical detail as to why the Big Bang most likely happened. However, its certainly a better and more sound explanation that to say that god was the first cause and made everything happen with a snap of his fingertips.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Well, then, I leave the burden of proof too you. Educate us. What valid scientific evidence do we have? No theories please, theories are of little use in this sort of thing, as anything can be a "theory of great scientific importance".

I know the story of the big bang. Give me the evidence.

http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/

Check it out

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The expanding universe. even scientist said in the big there was a force far greater than gravity ,matter ,energy,speed of light etc that split up into those things. at least thats what ive been told.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
even scientist said in the big there was a force far greater than gravity ,matter ,energy,speed of light etc that split up into those things. at least thats what ive been told.

Yes, and you could call that force God. However, that is NOT the god described in the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, and you could call that force God. However, that is NOT the god described in the bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

- Genesis 1:1


Implicitely, the Big Bang is how that creation happened, or was done.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

- Genesis 1:1


Implicitely, the Big Bang is how that creation happened, or was done.

But that force still isn't the Biblical God because he then goes on to do various things where as that original force split into the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

Originally posted by Digi
...which is to be expected, given its length.

....

In response to the thread starter:

The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.


Thats not really damning at all. The problem is whats your defintion of God. It makes perfect sense for gods to exist and to interact with humans eventhough theres no proof.

Originally posted by Digi

To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.



I don't see how thats more intellectually tenable.

Originally posted by Deadline
...It makes perfect sense for gods to exist and to interact with humans eventhough theres no proof.

Just like it makes perfect sense for unicorns to exist with no evidence for their existence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just like it makes perfect sense for unicorns to exist with no evidence for their existence.

More like ghosts, actually. Gods come with a built in power to never be noticed if they don't want to.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just like it makes perfect sense for unicorns to exist with no evidence for their existence.

No nothing like that at all. How does an ant perceieve a human being? Does it percieve a human as a lifeform or a natural phenemonon. Don't humans affect and control what happens to insects and bacteria.

So you're saying that its illogical for there to be more powerful intelligent beings than us? Looking at nature it makes perfect sense for gods to exist.

Originally posted by Deadline
No nothing like that at all. How does an ant perceieve a human being? Does it percieve a human as a lifeform or a natural phenemonon. Don't humans affect and control what happens to insects and bacteria.

So you're saying that its illogical for there to be more powerful intelligent beings than us? Looking at nature it makes perfect sense for gods to exist.

I am saying that it is illogical to believe a god could interact with humans and not leave any evidence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that force still isn't the Biblical God because he then goes on to do various things where as that original force split into the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

Creation = Big Bang

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Creation = Big Bang

Not necessarily. It really only represents a change.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am saying that it is illogical to believe a god could interact with humans and not leave any evidence. What would be good evidence? If a being claiming to be God appeared and did something biblical-like (eg, part the Indian Ocean), would that do it?

He sharted.

The end.

Originally posted by Mindship
What would be good evidence? If a being claiming to be God appeared and did something biblical-like (eg, part the Indian Ocean), would that do it?



There should be signs that the Indian Ocean had been parted.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There should be signs that the Indian Ocean had been parted.

Why? What would you even look for?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? What would you even look for?

Moment of soil. Would be my first guess.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Moment of soil. Would be my first guess.

I assume you mean "movement" but it wasn't a recurring event, the effects would be erased within a few decades.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I assume you mean "movement" but it wasn't a recurring event, the effects would be erased within a few decades.

I wasn't talking about decades after.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wasn't talking about decades after.

Really? I thought it was supposed to have happened thousands of years ago, thats easily a few decades.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? I thought it was supposed to have happened thousands of years ago, thats easily a few decades.

I don't think the Indian Ocean was ever parted.

If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, then the rock history would only show 6,000 years of sediment. However, it shows much longer.

If Moses lead the Israelite out of Egypt, then Egyptian records having to do with mundane things would have shown that sudden movement of people, and it doesn't.

If Jesus had done the miracles that are claimed in the NT, then the Romans would have brought him before the empire to cure Claudius's many ailments. Or at least the historians would have made note of the miracles when they recorded the death of Jesus.

Originally posted by Autokrat
There are several good arguments against the Cosomological argument.

I mentioned one up a few posts. If a person accepts the premise of a first cause, it does not necessarily follow that such a cause must be intelligent or supernatural.

From that premise alone, the universe itself could be a first cause, because if you accept that there must be a first cause, it does not demand that a cause be intelligent.

Agreed on all counts. I kept my definition of such a "god" in this scenario as vague as possible to account for non-intelligent forces.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thats not really damning at all. The problem is whats your defintion of God. It makes perfect sense for gods to exist and to interact with humans eventhough theres no proof.

I hope you're being sarcastic. How does it make perfect sense for there to be an interactive god even when you admit there's no evidence?

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't see how thats more intellectually tenable.

Because, unlike mainstream theism that includes an interactive God and supernatural phenomenon, it can't be readily refuted.

Originally posted by Deadline
No nothing like that at all. How does an ant perceieve a human being? Does it percieve a human as a lifeform or a natural phenemonon. Don't humans affect and control what happens to insects and bacteria.

So you're saying that its illogical for there to be more powerful intelligent beings than us? Looking at nature it makes perfect sense for gods to exist.

We know how the earth, and "nature," came about, and it was through causal forces that are defined and knowable. Appealing to a sense of beauty and wonder only worked before we had the knowledge to explain the physical universe and how it came about. No gods necessary, try again.

The ant analogy falls flat too, because an ant wouldn't comprehend us but would have evidence of our existence. Assuming the presence of something with nothing to lead us to that conclusion is indeed just like unicorns or ghosts. If you want to presume such presences, be my guest and do so. Just realize that you're basing the belief, literally, on nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think the Indian Ocean was ever parted.

If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, then the rock history would only show 6,000 years of sediment. However, it shows much longer.

If Moses lead the Israelite out of Egypt, then Egyptian records having to do with mundane things would have shown that sudden movement of people, and it doesn't.

If Jesus had done the miracles that are claimed in the NT, then the Romans would have brought him before the empire to cure Claudius's many ailments. Or at least the historians would have made note of the miracles when they recorded the death of Jesus.

Nice attempt at a topic change there. Very sneaky.

No wait, I mean foolish and blunt. Very obvious of you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nice attempt at a topic change there. Very sneaky.

No wait, I mean foolish and blunt. Very obvious of you.

There's a topic?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There should be signs that the Indian Ocean had been parted.
Signs, shmigns. I mean, presently...

If a being claiming to be God appeared and did something biblical-like, would that do it? Heck, all it took to convince John Denver was make it rain inside a car.

Originally posted by Mindship
Signs, shmigns. I mean, presently...

Heck, all it took to convince John Denver was make it rain inside a car.

But he got into a EXPERIMENTAL airplane. I mean, he's a musician, and died in a one seat EXPERIMENTAL airplane. It's no wonder rain inside a car would do it for him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But he got into a EXPERIMENTAL airplane. I mean, he's a musician, and died in a one seat EXPERIMENTAL airplane. It's no wonder rain inside a car would do it for him. ...that, or he was a little too rocky mountain high.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/

Check it out Centrifugal force.

Originally posted by Autokrat

And of course the most obvious example is the ever expanding universe. Considering I'm not a physicist, I can't explain to you in minute mathematical detail as to why the Big Bang most likely happened. However, its certainly a better and more sound explanation that to say that god was the first cause and made everything happen with a snap of his fingertips. Click on my sig, go to number three. That's you. That's how you sound. I asked you to give me evidence of the big bang and you gave me a back-track and overrated on my request, then "appealed to ignorance," then "strawman"ed.

You: there's more evidence of the big bang than of god.
Me: provide the evidence:
You: I can't because I'm not a physicist.

If you don't know of the evidence of yourself, why do you believe in it, then scorn Christians for believing in something they have no evidence for?

Also, If you will notice, many heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions of each other. Why is this if they were all spat out by one magnificent explosion?

Asking for "no theories" meant that I didn't want the big bang explained to me again. I've heard it a hundred times.

Originally posted by Digi


I hope you're being sarcastic. How does it make perfect sense for there to be an interactive god even when you admit there's no evidence?

Nope. My ant analogy. Im refering to gods though not god. Getting into a debate about god is pointless because it can't be defined accurately or comprehended.


Originally posted by Digi

Because, unlike mainstream theism that includes an interactive God and supernatural phenomenon, it can't be readily refuted.



Meh.

Originally posted by Digi

We know how the earth, and "nature," came about, and it was through causal forces that are defined and knowable. Appealing to a sense of beauty and wonder only worked before we had the knowledge to explain the physical universe and how it came about. No gods necessary, try again.


Thats incorrect you have some understanding of how nature came about. Theres a whole load of stuff about nature that humans can't comprehend or understand. Ants probably have some idea of nature as well.


Originally posted by Digi

The ant analogy falls flat too, because an ant wouldn't comprehend us but would have evidence of our existence.


You missed the point completely. The ant may or may not comprehend that as evidence. An ant may comprehend a human being as something entirely different. The same way a human being may comprehend an earthquake or rain as something else.

Now there may or may not be gods but since there are loads of organisms that aren't aware of our existence it makes perfect sense for us not to be aware of lifeforms that interact with our world and control it.

Originally posted by Digi

Assuming the presence of something with nothing to lead us to that conclusion is indeed just like unicorns or ghosts. If you want to presume such presences, be my guest and do so. Just realize that you're basing the belief, literally, on nothing.

No it makes perfect sense and its not based on nothing. Also assuming gods don't exist when you don't fully understand the universe is worse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am saying that it is illogical to believe a god could interact with humans and not leave any evidence.

Ok fine but I was talking about gods.

Hahaha I'm picturing everything you say as if satan was talking. Its pretty funny. So high right meowwww.


I pray that god may give you some faith in him.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Also, If you will notice, many heavenly bodies spin in opposite directions of each other. Why is this if they were all spat out by one magnificent explosion?

Asking for "no theories" meant that I didn't want the big bang explained to me again. I've heard it a hundred times.
Obviously not explained well enough if you ask a silly question like that that demonstrates you don't actually understand it.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hahaha I'm picturing everything you say as if satan was talking. Its pretty funny. So high right meowwww.


I pray that god may give you some faith in him.

I have to admit, no one as ever compared me to the devil before.

I'm flattered though that you would compare me to this badass.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Lucifer16.jpg

I mean, if I was a stud like that getting laid wouldn't be so difficult... er would be easier.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am saying that it is illogical to believe a god could interact with humans and not leave any evidence.

Looked at your post again. If you're refering to an omnipotent god like you have in monotheism then I don't even see the point in getting into a debate.

If you're talking about godlike beings then it isn't illogical. I quickly skimmed over your post and thought you were refering to God not gods. Maybe you were maybe you were not.

I'm not quite sure how to continue to respond to you Deadline. But I'll give it a shot I suppose.

Originally posted by Deadline
You missed the point completely. The ant may or may not comprehend that as evidence. An ant may comprehend a human being as something entirely different. The same way a human being may comprehend an earthquake or rain as something else.

Happily conceded. But let's return to the idea that we understand the processes that led to the creation of the planet and nature. We do. Do we know everything about the universe? Of course not. But apply Occam's Razor; Is it more likely that there is a causal explanation exists to explain the universe, or that there's ethereal gods/creatures/etc. interacting with it? With no evidence of ANY god, gods, supernatural forces, etc. to assume that they exist is silly.

Originally posted by Deadline
Now there may or may not be gods...

Heh, thank goodness. Here's at least some common ground upon which we can base our discussion.

Originally posted by Deadline
...but since there are loads of organisms that aren't aware of our existence it makes perfect sense for us not to be aware of lifeforms that interact with our world and control it.

Here's where you overstep logic. It doesn't make "perfect sense" for there to be gods that we can't perceive. It is, however, possible. But you seem to be confusing 'possible' with 'plausible,' the latter of which it most certainly isn't.

Saying that we don't know everything (which is the truth) then inserting a theory of gods based on no evidence will always remain possible. But, sans that all-important evidence, it will never be logical, rational to believe in, nor will it make perfect sense, especially when there is so much that we do know that precludes the need for any sort of supernatural intervention.

Originally posted by Deadline
Looked at your post again. If you're refering to an omnipotent god like you have in monotheism then I don't even see the point in getting into a debate.

If you're talking about godlike beings then it isn't illogical. I quickly skimmed over your post and thought you were refering to God not gods. Maybe you were maybe you were not.

Most people here mean the god of the bible when the write God. The god of the bible is no different then and other gods. So what do you mean when you captalize the word God?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most people here mean the god of the bible when the write God. The god of the bible is no different then and other gods. So what do you mean when you captalize the word God? omnipotent being i guess....

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
omnipotent being i guess....

That would be a guess, and nothing more. However, the god of the bible is not omnipotent.

.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would be a guess, and nothing more. However, the god of the bible is not omnipotent. he says in the bible that hes omnipotent

Oh really? Where.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
he says in the bible that hes omnipotent

And who wrote the bible? The answer is man. Therefore, man says that god is omnipotent. But all that aside: Look at the world around you, and tell me that this imperfect world was made by an omnipotent god. In the bible, god even regrets making man. An omnipotent god would never have a reason to regret.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And who wrote the bible? The answer is man. Therefore, man says that god is omnipotent. But all that aside: Look at the world around you, and tell me that this imperfect world was made by an omnipotent god. In the bible, god even regrets making man. An omnipotent god would never have a reason to regret.
Okay.

Omnipotent being can do anything and everything
so.

1. he can make an imperfect world on purpose (why make a perfect universe?) flaws is what makes thing interesting.
how would you like it if every person on the planet was the same? thats like this movie i saw where everyone was dull with no emotions..
2. he made man imperfect on purpose already knowing he would regret it because he knows everything. existence itself could of been something he made just to make it, like when some one is bored they draw or doodle.

3.also if everything was perfect what purpose would god have now?
so he made things flawed so we can look up to him.

God sounds dumb.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Okay.

Omnipotent being can do anything and everything
so.

1. he can make an imperfect world on purpose (why make a perfect universe?) flaws is what makes thing interesting.
how would you like it if every person on the planet was the same? thats like this movie i saw where everyone was dull with no emotions..
2. he made man imperfect on purpose already knowing he would regret it because he knows everything. existence itself could of been something he made just to make it, like when some one is bored they draw or doodle.

3.also if everything was perfect what purpose would god have now?
so he made things flawed so we can look up to him.

However, if 1 or 2 was true, then that would mean that god is evil. You pick; not omnipotent, or evil?

The more obvious point is that all three are blind assumptions about the nature and intentions of a hypothetical omnipotent being. But shakya's objections work as well.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Okay.

Omnipotent being can do anything and everything
so.

1. he can make an imperfect world on purpose (why make a perfect universe?) flaws is what makes thing interesting.
how would you like it if every person on the planet was the same? thats like this movie i saw where everyone was dull with no emotions..
2. he made man imperfect on purpose already knowing he would regret it because he knows everything. existence itself could of been something he made just to make it, like when some one is bored they draw or doodle.

3.also if everything was perfect what purpose would god have now?
so he made things flawed so we can look up to him. He didnt make man imperfect on purpose.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Okay.

Omnipotent being can do anything and everything
so.

1. he can make an imperfect world on purpose (why make a perfect universe?) flaws is what makes thing interesting.
how would you like it if every person on the planet was the same? thats like this movie i saw where everyone was dull with no emotions..
2. he made man imperfect on purpose already knowing he would regret it because he knows everything. existence itself could of been something he made just to make it, like when some one is bored they draw or doodle.

3.also if everything was perfect what purpose would god have now?
so he made things flawed so we can look up to him.
But he's all-knowing, so I don't see how a flawed universe could be any more interesting than a perfect one. Either way, he knows everything that's going to happen.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not quite sure how to continue to respond to you Deadline. But I'll give it a shot I suppose.

Thats because you're assuming I don't know what im talking about and seem to be making assumptions about what im trying to say.

Originally posted by Digi

Happily conceded. But let's return to the idea that we understand the processes that led to the creation of the planet and nature. We do. Do we know everything about the universe? Of course not. But apply Occam's Razor; Is it more likely that there is a causal explanation exists to explain the universe, or that there's ethereal gods/creatures/etc. interacting with it?

To quite honest with you I think this post indicates that you don't understand the point im making.

What makes you think that because I think gods exist that they created the universe, you seem to be assuming that. Are human beings ethereal or and supernatural? So why does a god have to be supernatural or ethereal?

Originally posted by Digi

With no evidence of ANY god, gods, supernatural forces, etc. to assume that they exist is silly.


No evidence? What you mean like human beings? Which is why unicorns and ghosts have no place in this discussion. Can you give me an example of a ghost or a unicorn? Nope, but I can give you examples of gods.

What you don't seem to be comprehending is that the reason why its plausible for gods to exist is because there are examples of gods in existence now. The conclusion is come from observing nature not from reading the Bible or some vision. facepalm

Im pretty sure the existence of other universes and dimensions is a plausible scientific theory. The microscopic world could come under the definition of a universe or dimension. Wait so all of a sudden it becomes implausible for other dimensions now? The only reason why it seems implausible to you is because I mentioned the g word.

Originally posted by Digi

Here's where you overstep logic. It doesn't make "perfect sense" for there to be gods that we can't perceive. It is, however, possible. But you seem to be confusing 'possible' with 'plausible,' the latter of which it most certainly isn't.

*sigh* No Digi, im not confusing anything. Its possible and plausible for reasons already given. The problem is you clearly are not comprehending the points im making and your last post clearly indicates this.



Originally posted by Digi

Saying that we don't know everything (which is the truth) then inserting a theory of gods based on no evidence will always remain possible. But, sans that all-important evidence, it will never be logical, rational to believe in, nor will it make perfect sense, especially when there is so much that we do know that precludes the need for any sort of supernatural intervention.

Humans are supernatural are they? If you actually thought for one moment you would actually realise that atheism and a scientific mindset does not actually contradict a world with gods, they are compatible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most people here mean the god of the bible when the write God. The god of the bible is no different then and other gods. So what do you mean when you captalize the word God?

Wow thats completetly incorrect. Gods in Norse Lore die for starters.

Big G indicates a being that is infinite and eternal. You don't have to be infinite and eternal to be a god or be all-powerful. A human-being is a god to an ant.

Originally posted by Deadline
Wow thats completetly incorrect. Gods in Norse Lore die for starters.

Big G indicates a being that is infinite and eternal. You don't have to be infinite and eternal to be a god or be all-powerful. A human-being is a god to an ant.

No. That is like calling a flashlight magic just because it is magic to a primitive.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. That is like calling a flashlight magic just because it is magic to a primitive.

All your quote states is that everything is relative that doesn't mean that humans can't be considered gods. The reason why you don't consider humans to be gods is because you are one yourself and don't see the big deal. If you look at mythology gods are not gods amongst other gods eventhough you have varying degrees of power levels but they are clearly massively more powerful than humans. That is comparable to humans and ants.


What humans can do to insects and the bacterial world is consistent with gods of myths. Thor was said to cause winds by blowing. A human could literially blow ants a way by blowing on them he could cause earthquakes by stamping his feets he could cause it to rain by spitting. Aren't gods said to have created races? Im not entirely sure but I think scientists are also capable of genetically modifying insects, when humans do things like that they are using there god like powers. Just because its not supernatural doesn't means its not consistent with being a god.

Just to illustrate a point. If you read DC comics you will know of a character called Mr Mxy who has the power to warp reality. Mr Mxy states to other races his powers seems like magic when all it is is science. Mr Mxy pretty much fits the defintion of a god and just like your quote hes not a magical being hes just more advanced. Human beings can't warp reality but to other creatures we could be considered to have magical powers, that doesn't mean we are not gods.

Originally posted by Deadline
All your quote states is that everything is relative that doesn't mean that humans can't be considered gods. The reason why you don't consider humans to be gods is because you are one yourself and don't see the big deal. If you look at mythology gods are not gods amongst other gods eventhough you have varying degrees of power levels but they are clearly massively more powerful than humans. That is comparable to humans and ants.


What humans can do to insects and the bacterial world is consistent with gods of myths. Thor was said to cause winds by blowing. A human could literially blow ants a way by blowing on them he could cause earthquakes by stamping his feets he could cause it to rain by spitting. Aren't gods said to have created races? Im not entirely sure but I think scientists are also capable of genetically modifying insects, when humans do things like that they are using there god like powers. Just because its not supernatural doesn't means its not consistent with being a god.

Just to illustrate a point. If you read DC comics you will know of a character called Mr Mxy who has the power to warp reality. Mr Mxy states to other races his powers seems like magic when all it is is science. Mr Mxy pretty much fits the defintion of a god and just like your quote hes not a magical being hes just more advanced. Human beings can't warp reality but to other creatures we could be considered to have magical powers, that doesn't mean we are not gods.

I'm sure that is how gods came into existence. Humans love stories. They loved them 70,000 years ago just as much as they love them now. And there is nothing to compare to a good superhero. However, mixing fiction and science only gets you science fiction, and not science fact (or theory).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, if 1 or 2 was true, then that would mean that god is evil. You pick; not omnipotent, or evil? you means has evil in him? every human has an evil emotion. that doesnt mean they all will show it...

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
you means has evil in him? every human has an evil emotion. that doesnt mean they all will show it...

So, you think that god has evil in "him"? Most Christians would consider that to be blasphemy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sure that is how gods came into existence. Humans love stories. They loved them 70,000 years ago just as much as they love them now.


Um they could have come to that conclusion from observing nature as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

And there is nothing to compare to a good superhero. However, mixing fiction and science only gets you science fiction, and not science fact (or theory).

You missed the point entirely. The references to fiction has nothing to do with why I think its plausible that gods exist. This is the issue, you don't consider human beings to be gods. Obvously your idea and concept of what a gods is comes from fiction. All I was doing is making comparisons with fictional gods and showing that human beings are consistent with the defintion of a god.

At this moment in our discussion were not talking about wether its plausible for gods to exist were talking about wether humans fit the defintion of a god.

Originally posted by Deadline
Um they could have come to that conclusion from observing nature as well.



You missed the point entirely. The references to fiction has nothing to do with why I think its plausible that gods exist. This is the issue, you don't consider human beings to be gods. Obvously your idea and concept of what a gods is comes from fiction. All I was doing is making comparisons with fictional gods and showing that human beings are consistent with the defintion of a god.

At this moment in our discussion were not talking about wether its plausible for gods to exist were talking about wether humans fit the defintion of a god.

But that goes back to my flashlight analogy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. That is like calling a flashlight magic just because it is magic to a primitive.

You can call a flashlight magic, but I wouldn't. Therefore you could call humans gods, but that would change the meaning of the word god. Now, I not against redefining the meaning of the word god. Religions do it all the time. However, how does that relate to god and the big bang? Humans didn't exist then.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that goes back to my flashlight analogy.

Sorry it doesn't your still missing the point completely

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You can call a flashlight magic, but I wouldn't. Therefore you could call humans gods, but that would change the meaning of the word god.

No it wouldn't thats faulty logic. What you are saying is that since humans are not supernatural they do not fit the defintion of what a god is. This is indicated that human beings could be understood and comprehended ie flashlight can be comprehended.

Even in fiction and mythology humans are shown to have the ability to understand gods, according to your logic these gods become like the flashlight and cease being gods. Therefore just because you understand something doesn't stop that thing from being what it is.

The reason why humans are gods is because they fit the defintion of what a god is in lots of ways.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Now, I not against redefining the meaning of the word god. Religions do it all the time.

Except thats not what you're doing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

However, how does that relate to god and the big bang? Humans didn't exist then.

Not sure I just got into a discussion with Digi where I thought the existance of gods was plausible and you decided to jump in.

Originally posted by magicturtle
well how does God, fit in with the Big Bang?

---

My own little theory is that God Caused, the Big Bang.
Post whatever but please base what your saying if its factual, on some sort of FACT

According to the beliefs of mystical Judaism and the non-Hollywood version of Kabbalah the big bang more or less describes how they aesthetically determined god created the universe hundreds of years ago so to them, there is absolutely no disconnect between god and science at all.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sorry it doesn't your still missing the point completely



No it wouldn't thats faulty logic. What you are saying is that since humans are not supernatural they do not fit the defintion of what a god is. This is indicated that human beings could be understood and comprehended ie flashlight can be comprehended.

Even in fiction and mythology humans are shown to have the ability to understand gods, according to your logic these gods become like the flashlight and cease being gods. Therefore just because you understand something doesn't stop that thing from being what it is.

The reason why humans are gods is because they fit the defintion of what a god is in lots of ways.



Except thats not what you're doing.



Not sure I just got into a discussion with Digi where I thought the existance of gods was plausible and you decided to jump in.

To me, a god is a variable in a math equation (1+A=B). The wind blows, but we don't see anything. Therefore, it must be some god that is moving around us. Later we find that the wind is air. The idea of a wind god goes away. We look up into the sky and see a sun. We don't know what it is, therefore it must be a god. Now we know what the sun is, and the sun god goes away.

I do not see how we fit the description of a god. However, it does remind me of a story:

There was this guy who climbed a maintain to talk to a wise sage. He asked the sage for the secret to the universe. The sage told him that you are god. The man was shocked, but delighted at the idea about being a god. He then went on with his life with idea that he was a god. Then, one day, he was walking down the road and he came upon an elephant. Being god, the man stood his ground. The elephant simply picked the man up and tossed him to the side. He was dismayed about this even, and went straight away back up the maintain to have a word with that sage. He then asked the sage, "how could I be god, if an elephant can just toss me off to the side of the road?" The sage replies that the elephant is also god.

Originally posted by Deadline
What makes you think that because I think gods exist that they created the universe, you seem to be assuming that. Are human beings ethereal or and supernatural? So why does a god have to be supernatural or ethereal?

Ug. I'm not talking about "God" and I know you aren't either. I've tried to keep my definitions of "gods" as vague and amorphic as possible, because I realize that's what you're talking about. So quit trying to knock down a straw man in my words that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Deadline
No evidence? What you mean like human beings? Which is why unicorns and ghosts have no place in this discussion. Can you give me an example of a ghost or a unicorn? Nope, but I can give you examples of gods.

Then give them to me. Don't just parade around some alleged evidence for gods without making yourself clear.

Originally posted by Deadline
What you don't seem to be comprehending is that the reason why its plausible for gods to exist is because there are examples of gods in existence now. The conclusion is come from observing nature not from reading the Bible or some vision. facepalm

When have I ever talked about the Bible or Biblical god in our discussion? Straw men...

Originally posted by Deadline
Im pretty sure the existence of other universes and dimensions is a plausible scientific theory. The microscopic world could come under the definition of a universe or dimension. Wait so all of a sudden it becomes implausible for other dimensions now? The only reason why it seems implausible to you is because I mentioned the g word.

If I read your implications correctly (though, tbh, I'd much prefer you just state your opinions clearly) you start talking about other dimensions and even humans themselves as evidence for divine. If you're going to define such things as "supernatural" or "gods," then there's no reason to. Humans aren't gods. Or if we're to define them as gods, the traditional meaning of the word loses its value. Other dimensions, if they exist, aren't supernatural: they have a causal explanation. Which was my point all along. So if we're going to water down the meaning of such terms to the point that we're talking about, say, Einstein's "God" (which was just how he described the beauty and complexity of the universe, not as a personification of a deity) then you're absolutely right. If you want to describe nature as god, humans as gods, etc. go right ahead. But it's absolutely pointless.

Originally posted by Digi
Other dimensions, if they exist, aren't supernatural: they have a causal explanation.

are we talking depth or width?

Originally posted by inimalist
are we talking depth or width?

I figure he means other realities.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I figure he means other realities.

like you've never been pedantic

Originally posted by inimalist
like you've never been pedantic

lol, indeed. But I've taken to ignoring or avoiding debates with inamilist like I ignore JIA, but for entirely different reasons. I'm almost always going to agree with him, and his respones to me are usually just to clarify or temper something that I've said, not in direct refutation to them, so it's best to just agree with him instead of arguing the point only to concede defeat later.

But in this case I was talking depth. B*tch.

uhuh

Originally posted by Digi
Ug. I'm not talking about "God" and I know you aren't either. I've tried to keep my definitions of "gods" as vague and amorphic as possible, because I realize that's what you're talking about. So quit trying to knock down a straw man in my words that doesn't exist.

I don't think thats my fault. You used words such as ethereal and supernatural, in all fairness you used the words creature as well and 'any god' but since you didn't specify you left it open to interpretation.


Originally posted by Digi

Then give them to me. Don't just parade around some alleged evidence for gods without making yourself clear.



I have you just don't agree on the defintion.

Originally posted by Digi

When have I ever talked about the Bible or Biblical god in our discussion? Straw men...

I never said you did. The point was that my basis is from nature. You used words such as supernatural therefore I assumed you thought my basis was from some vision or religous scripture. Its not my fault you didn't make yourself clear.


Originally posted by Digi

If I read your implications correctly (though, tbh, I'd much prefer you just state your opinions clearly) you start talking about other dimensions and even humans themselves as evidence for divine. If you're going to define such things as "supernatural" or "gods," then there's no reason to. Humans aren't gods. Or if we're to define them as gods, the traditional meaning of the word loses its value. Other dimensions, if they exist, aren't supernatural: they have a causal explanation. Which was my point all along.


I don't know where your getting this from its like saying that if a Dragon doesn't breath fire then its not a dragon. Millions of people believe that science can be used to explain and gain a better understanding of God,gods,angels, and other supernatural phenemonon no where has it been made official that if a casual explanation is provided then it ceases being what it is. This is the same thing Shaky was saying and I pretty much showed how that was flawed logic.

Provide a causal explanation for a ghost its still ghost. Provide a casual explantion for telekinesis or magick its still telekinesis or magick.

Originally posted by Digi

So if we're going to water down the meaning of such terms to the point that we're talking about, say, Einstein's "God" (which was just how he described the beauty and complexity of the universe, not as a personification of a deity) then you're absolutely right. If you want to describe nature as god, humans as gods, etc. go right ahead. But it's absolutely pointless.

Except thats not what im doing. Human beings are consistent with the traditional defintion of what a gods is. Being supernatural is not an neccesary part of the definition.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me, a god is a variable in a math equation (1+A=B). The wind blows, but we don't see anything. Therefore, it must be some god that is moving around us. Later we find that the wind is air. The idea of a wind god goes away. We look up into the sky and see a sun. We don't know what it is, therefore it must be a god. Now we know what the sun is, and the sun god goes away.

I do not see how we fit the description of a god. However, it does remind me of a story:

There was this guy who climbed a maintain to talk to a wise sage. He asked the sage for the secret to the universe. The sage told him that you are god. The man was shocked, but delighted at the idea about being a god. He then went on with his life with idea that he was a god. Then, one day, he was walking down the road and he came upon an elephant. Being god, the man stood his ground. The elephant simply picked the man up and tossed him to the side. He was dismayed about this even, and went straight away back up the maintain to have a word with that sage. He then asked the sage, "how could I be god, if an elephant can just toss me off to the side of the road?" The sage replies that the elephant is also god.

This is just going around in circles. The fact of the matter is your analogy pretty much showed how thats flawed logic. Just because you find out that the flashlight isn't magic doesn't mean its not a flashlight.

If you want that to be your defintion of what a god is thats fine but its in no way official.

Originally posted by Deadline
This is just going around in circles. The fact of the matter is your analogy pretty much showed how thats flawed logic. Just because you find out that the flashlight isn't magic doesn't mean its not a flashlight.

If you want that to be your defintion of what a god is thats fine but its in no way official.

That is not what I am saying, at all. I am saying that the flashlight is not magic, and never has been. You are the one who is saying that the flashlight is magic. In other words, you are saying that men are gods, because they fit the definition, but the definition was created by man. That means that humans are just human, and not gods, and never have been. Just like the flashlight. In order for men to be gods, then all things must be gods, and then word god has no meaning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not what I am saying, at all. I am saying that the flashlight is not magic, and never has been. You are the one who is saying that the flashlight is magic.

No im not. Your analogy implies that supernatural is an essential part of a defintion of god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

In other words, you are saying that men are gods, because they fit the definition, but the definition was created by man.
That means that humans are just human, and not gods, and never have been.

edit: Thats kinda embarrasing im rather tired right now

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Just like the flashlight. In order for men to be gods, then all things must be gods, and then word god has no meaning.

Thats a cop out. Thats like saying that the word evil has no meaning. I see what you getting at though. Everything is relative but your not proving your case here at all. Why does everything have to be a god is everything sentient? I think you're over complicating the issue.

Originally posted by Deadline
No im not.



Oh ok I guess humans are reptiles as well. The defintion of a reptile was created by man so men must be reptiles. What sort of logic is that.



Thats a cop out. Thats like saying that the word evil has no meaning. I see what you getting at though. Everything is relative but your not proving your case here at all.

You are NOT making any sense. Reptiles have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The word god means:

God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God. Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, by contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
(I went to Wiki because we are not ready for more advanced definitions)

How dose this above definition describe humans?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are NOT making any sense. Reptiles have nothing to do with what we are talking about.


Im kinda tired right now that would probably explain it, forget that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

The word god means:

God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides, Augustine of Hippo, and Al-Ghazali, respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God. Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, by contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
(I went to Wiki because we are not ready for more advanced definitions)

How dose this above definition describe humans?

With all due respect I explained that already but im just going to have to do it again. The problem is that alot of things in your defintion are not essential part of what a god is. Omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal etc.

I think im too tired right now to get into it.

Originally posted by Deadline
Im kinda tired right now that would probably explain it, forget that.



With all due respect I explained that already but im just going to have to do it again. The problem is that alot of things in your defintion are not essential part of what a god is. Omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal etc.

I think im too tired right now to get into it.

If your tired that is fine. Come back when you are rested. But when you do, please link a post to the definition of god that you are using. The definition above is the most generic I can think of.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If your tired that is fine. Come back when you are rested. But when you do, please link a post to the definition of god that you are using. The definition above is the most generic I can think of.

Well im going to try again. Your defintion is generic but it is not an essential part of the defintion of what a god is.

Take the Norse gods . The Norse gods were born, and they die. They did not create the universe they were created by the universe and played a part in creating it. Just like humans. Norse gods are not all-powerful, ominpresent or ominpotent and neither are humans.

What makes the Norse gods gods essentially is the fact that they are vastly more powerful than humans...thats it.

The only reason why you dont think humans are gods is because you are a human yourself. Lets take another look at a race of gods. The Q from Star Trek fit the defintion of what a god is in many ways the only difference is that they are not worshipped. There is one episode where the humans were transported to the dimension of the Q and were made as powerful as the Q. When they went there everything was normal just the way the real world is to you and me. Does that stop the Q from being gods? No it doesn't.

Im not sure if I can make this any clearer. Gods can be limited and fallible and can be comprehended that doesn't stop them from being gods. Gods comprehend themselves the same way humans comprehend each other.

Originally posted by Deadline
Human beings are consistent with the traditional defintion of what a gods is. Being supernatural is not an neccesary part of the definition. So one person may include the supernatural part while another may not? That's not being consistent. In any event...

S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

Empirical phenomena, by its own being, does not prove the existence of a transcendant, creator god. One can reinterpret empirical phenomena (eg, the Big Bang) to try and prove so, but this reinterpretation adds nothing to a purely empircal understanding of how the world works.

However, one can certainly use this reinterpretation (hopefully with a sound helping of common sense) to strengthen one's spiritual beliefs and feel connected to something which may exist beyond the hardware of reality. There is no way it can be proven wrong. But that doesn't mean it's right, not even close.

Originally posted by Digi
...which is to be expected, given its length.

....

In response to the thread starter:

The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.

To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.

The Big Bang represents our best current understanding of the origins of the universe, and can be considered a valid scientific belief until contradictory or supplementary evidence is discovered. The power of science lies in its ability to self-correct over time, its adherence to logic, its admittance of our areas of ignorance (instead of trying to fill such voids with nonsense), and its lack of dogmatism. I believe (not unconditionally, mind you) that the Big Bang happened, and I believe in no god. That's my answer to the two areas of the thread's title.

100% agree

Originally posted by Mindship
So one person may include the supernatural part while another may not? That's not being consistent. In any event...


Millions of people believe that science can explain the supernatural. Thats consistent enough.

Originally posted by Mindship

S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god


Not sure what your point is but there is alot in your defintion that could exclude the greek and norse gods.

Originally posted by Mindship

Empirical phenomena, by its own being, does not prove the existence of a transcendant, creator god. One can reinterpret empirical phenomena (eg, the Big Bang) to try and prove so, but this reinterpretation adds nothing to a purely empircal understanding of how the world works.

However, one can certainly use this reinterpretation (hopefully with a sound helping of common sense) to strengthen one's spiritual beliefs and feel connected to something which may exist beyond the hardware of reality. There is no way it can be proven wrong. But that doesn't mean it's right, not even close.

Not sure what your point is and im not sure if I disagree.

Originally posted by Deadline
Well im going to try again. Your defintion is generic but it is not an essential part of the defintion of what a god is.

Take the Norse gods . The Norse gods were born, and they die. They did not create the universe they were created by the universe and played a part in creating it. Just like humans. Norse gods are not all-powerful, ominpresent or ominpotent and neither are humans.

What makes the Norse gods gods essentially is the fact that they are vastly more powerful than humans...thats it.

The only reason why you dont think humans are gods is because you are a human yourself. Lets take another look at a race of gods. The Q from Star Trek fit the defintion of what a god is in many ways the only difference is that they are not worshipped. There is one episode where the humans were transported to the dimension of the Q and were made as powerful as the Q. When they went there everything was normal just the way the real world is to you and me. Does that stop the Q from being gods? No it doesn't.

Im not sure if I can make this any clearer. Gods can be limited and fallible and can be comprehended that doesn't stop them from being gods. Gods comprehend themselves the same way humans comprehend each other.

Do you believe that any of these gods are real?

If we stay in the world of fiction and mythology, I can see your point. However, when I apply this to reality, it falls short, and doesn't work.

.

I better take a break.

Originally posted by Deadline
.

I better take a break.

You had better.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
how exactly do you pronounce your name? lol they way i say it might be different

Originally posted by Deadline
Except thats not what im doing. Human beings are consistent with the traditional defintion of what a gods is. Being supernatural is not an neccesary part of the definition.

I think this is the crux. Humans are gods in your opinion. Fair enough. Though, as others have pointed out, humans aren't consistent with traditional definitions of gods. I think shakya went so far as to post a very generic definition. But they are consistent with what you consider to be the criteria for being a god.

To quote myself earlier, it's absolutely pointless. If everyone is a god, no one is, because the idea is so watered-down as to mean nothing meaningful. But you're welcome to such an opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you believe that any of these gods are real?

ET isn't real either doesn't stop the fact that aliens are plausible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If we stay in the world of fiction and mythology, I can see your point. However, when I apply this to reality, it falls short, and doesn't work.

No it doesn't. If you want to talk about specifically wether Thor or Odin exists then the logic fails.

Eventhough gods are fiction the defintion of what a god is derived from reality just like aliens. When we see examples of fiction even though specfic examples don't exist they are examples of what is possible. For examples a water breathing alien called Bob can't be proven to exist but people have deduced by looking at humans and earth that an alien like that may exist at some point in the universe.

Also humans can deduce that godlike beings exist by looking at the relative power levels of creatures. Humans don't think they are gods therefore there must be a race of godlike beings that don't think they are gods either.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You had better.

Are you kidding? You think I stopped because I don't know what im talking about. I stopped because I was tired.

Originally posted by Digi
I think this is the crux. Humans are gods in your opinion. Fair enough. Though, as others have pointed out, humans aren't consistent with traditional definitions of gods.


Yes they are and I even explained and proved that with a detailed post. Humans aren't gods to you because you're a human being. Nobody pointed out anything all thats happened as i've explained it in detail and its been ignored.

Feel free to disagree but you are clearly not getting the point. That defintion applies to "God" that defintion does not apply to some pagan gods. Humans do not fit that defintion but they do fit the defintion of a pagan god. Pagan gods are examples of what you would consider to be a traditional view of what a god is and humans fit into THAT defintion.

Originally posted by Digi

I think shakya went so far as to post a very generic definition. But they are consistent with what you consider to be the criteria for being a god.

That defintion was consistent with the Biblical God as I pointed out that defintion was not consistent with the Norse Gods. So are the Norse Gods not gods anymore? Of course not.


Originally posted by Digi

To quote myself earlier, it's absolutely pointless. If everyone is a god, no one is, because the idea is so watered-down as to mean nothing meaningful. But you're welcome to such an opinion.

Then clearly the Norse God and to a lesser extent Greek Gods shouldn't be considered to be gods either. In their mythology they are not the most powerful beings either....just like humans.

Just because everything can be a god doesn't make the term is meaningless because its relative and it depends on what you are comparing it with.

That logic applies to the "God" ie Islamic and Christian God that does not neccesarily apply to paganism. In some forms of paganism the term god is relative and that logic you are using here could be appllied to them as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Aliens are only possible because there is a real example of life on a planet in this universe (Earth). If there were no examples of life in this universe, then we do not know if it is plausible.

Yes and as I said before...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

As long as they do not break the laws of psychics, then they can exist. However, one of the main attributes of a god is the ability to break the laws of psychics.


No it isn't. They just seem to break the laws of physics because they are more powerful than us. Again thats not an essential part of the defintion. They just seem to be supernatural. Gods do not consider themselves to be supernatural

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

There is a limit to this, and that is the laws of psychics. Also, just because an ant may think a man is a god does not mean the ant is right.


What the ant is wrong that humans are vastly more powerful than them?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


If the shoe fits…

Excuse me?

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes and as I said before...

You said a lot of things before, but nothing like what I said.

Originally posted by Deadline
No it isn't. They just seem to break the laws of physics because they are more powerful than us. Again thats not an essential part of the defintion. They just seem to be supernatural. Gods do not consider themselves to be supernatural

Supernatural does not exist. The laws of physics cannot be broken, but they can be worked around. If a race of being are powerful enough to seem to defy the laws of physics, then we might think they were god like, but they would still not be gods.

Originally posted by Deadline
What the ant is wrong that humans are vastly more powerful than them?

No, about humans being gods.

Originally posted by Deadline
Excuse me?

No problem, I didn't smell it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison



Supernatural does not exist. The laws of physics cannot be broken, but they can be worked around. If a race of being are powerful enough to seem to defy the laws of physics, then we might think they were god like, but they would still not be gods.



There are millions of people who believe in God, gods, angels and ghosts who believe that it can be explained by science. That doesn't mean that they think it stops them from being what they are. I have said this numerous times and in no way is my opinion uncommon. Millions of religous/spiritual people think that the term supernatual is just relative. That doesn't mean that if a God could be explained and comprehended through science that they would think its not God anymore, you might be right about the Christian or Islamic God though.

Originally posted by Deadline
There are millions of people who believe in God, gods, angels and ghosts who believe that it can be explained by science. That doesn't mean that they think it stops them from being what they are. I have said this numerous times and in no way is my opinion uncommon. Millions of religous/spiritual people think that the term supernatual is just relative. That doesn't mean that if a God could be explained and comprehended through science that they would think its not God anymore, you might be right about the Christian or Islamic God though.
Popularity does not dictate the truth. In the past most people believed that the Earth was flat. Now that we know the Earth is a ball, can we call this ball flat? If we do, we are simply changing the meaning of the word flat?

Originally posted by Deadline
Gods do not consider themselves to be supernatural

How do you know this?

Originally posted by Mindship
How do you know this?

Within their own experience the supernatural would be something completely different. I'm sure that fish aren't very impressed that they can breathe under water, the feat of breathing air would certainly seem more impressive to them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Popularity does not dictate the truth. In the past most people believed that the Earth was flat. Now that we know the Earth is a ball, can we call this ball flat? If we do, we are simply changing the meaning of the word flat?


We already agree that powerful beings could exist. Here is were we disagree....you said that if a god can be explained by science then its not a god and that is the traditional view of what a god is. Im not saying thats incorrect im saying thats not the only traditional view.

Truth is irrelevant at this point because we both agree that these beings can exist we disagree on how its defined. Im not saying your defintion is wrong im saying its not the only traditional one. You can't say that that view of what a god is incorrect its a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Mindship
How do you know this?

Pretty much what Sym said. Which is what i've been trying to say.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Popularity does not dictate the truth. In the past most people believed that the Earth was flat. Now that we know the Earth is a ball, can we call this ball flat? If we do, we are simply changing the meaning of the word flat?

Just to add. The reasons why I mentioned angels, ghost etc wasn't because I was trying to prove they exist. Im just saying that if people believe that science can be used to explain these things then they obvoulsy believe that with gods and possibly God. Wether or not ghosts exist isn't relevant. What were focusing on is gods we already agree that they could exist we disagree on what is a traditional view. Ive proved that science being used to explain god doesn't stop a god from being a god is a traditional view, and you can't say its wrong.

You can't say its wrong logically, you also can't say that its wrong thats lots of people feel this way.

Originally posted by Deadline
Pretty much what Sym said. Which is what i've been trying to say. Alrighty. Let's see what Sym said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Within their own experience the supernatural would be something completely different. It would seem 'normal' to them, I suppose. But would not their godly awareness still enable them to see how we see them, and that therefore, by comparison, they are supernatural?

What's unclear here is the nature of the universe-at-large. If the universe is mostly supernatural, then what you say would hold more truth. Gods would see themselves as in line with the order of things, whereas humans (and the small 'natural' part of the universe we inhabit), might be seen as subpar. However, if the supernatural facet of the universe is the smaller aspect, then it seems to me that a god would recognize its higher nature by comparison to everything else.

I'm sure that fish aren't very impressed that they can breathe under water, the feat of breathing air would certainly seem more impressive to them. Would it? But let's forget fish: they don't have the gray matter to make this kind of comparison. I wonder what, say, a squid might make of us? Perhaps they'd feel sorry for us -- see us as subpar -- because we have only two arms, tiny eyes which need a lot of light, and can 'fall'.

My point is, we're doing a lot of projecting and making suppositions about beings that may be entirely fictional. I don't know how a 'real god' would think, except that it would see me as an inferior being bound by laws of physics, whereas a supernatural god would not be (and if it was, it would not be 'super'natural).

In closing, this discussion reminds me of Clarke's Law: Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

But does that make the tech supernatural? I think how the laws of physics fit into this scenario is what's key here.

Deadline doesn't seem to want to budge. If he wants humans to be gods by his definition, more power to him. But my new question is this, Deadline: how does this affect your worldview? What is gained, or what changes, from referring to ourselves as gods instead of humans, when there is no change is our actual composition and nature?

Because it seems to me like you're just applying religious terminology where none is needed. Why not discard the matter and say that humans are humans?

Originally posted by Digi
Deadline doesn't seem to want to budge. If he wants humans to be gods by his definition, more power to him.

Seriously your still not getting it. According to your logic the Norse gods are not gods. Also the term fast is clearly meaningless because Usain Bolts isn't as fast as a bullet or laser. Does Usain Bolt come under the defintion of fast, of course he does.

The term isn't meaningless its relative just like everything else.

Originally posted by Digi

But my new question is this, Deadline: how does this affect your worldview? What is gained, or what changes, from referring to ourselves as gods instead of humans, when there is no change is our actual composition and nature?

Don't see how thats relevant really.


Originally posted by Digi

Because it seems to me like you're just applying religious terminology where none is needed. Why not discard the matter and say that humans are humans?

Nope your just not getting it and clearly not listening. As I pointed out humans are similar to the Norse God conceptually.

.

Hasn't this entire debate been nothing more than a pointless argument of semantics?

If you start changing definitions all the time, then of course you could very well claim anything means anything or relates to anything.

bumped for end of page:

Originally posted by Deadline
Nope your just not getting it and clearly not listening. As I pointed out humans are similar to the Norse God conceptually.

Yes yes, we're the most powerful beings within our reality that we know of, and have many similar characteristics to gods of mythology. Our definition of gods is relative to what we consider exceptional, Usain Bolt could be considered a god of speed relative to our views, there's many other examples like that, etc. etc. I understand your position, agree with parts of it (though not all) and have read all your posts that respond to me.

But again, what's the point? Why call us gods when you could just say we're humans and avoid the confusion? What do we gain by labeling ourselves as such?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Hasn't this entire debate been nothing more than a pointless argument of semantics?

Pretty much.

Originally posted by Digi
Yes yes, we're the most powerful beings within our reality that we know of, and have many similar characteristics to gods of mythology. Our definition of gods is relative to what we consider exceptional, Usain Bolt could be considered a god of speed relative to our views, there's many other examples like that, etc. etc. I understand your position, agree with parts of it (though not all) and have read all your posts that respond to me.

Which therefore means that humans fit into the defintion of a pagan god not a monotheistic one.

Originally posted by Digi

So again, what's the point? Why call us gods when you could just say we're humans and avoid the confusion? What do we gain by labeling ourselves as such?

There is no confusion. Im just pointing out that if we exist there are other beings more powerful than us and the concept of gods is not such an irrational idea.

When the wind is blowing and there an earthquake it may not actually be what you think it is. It could actually be a highier lifeform. What you think is going on could be something else entirely.

Originally posted by Autokrat

If you start changing definitions all the time, then of course you could very well claim anything means anything or relates to anything.

Except im not doing that. If you have a defintion and something fits into it its not semantics. A rock would not fit into a defintion of what a god is.

Originally posted by Deadline
Which therefore means that humans fit into the defintion of a pagan god not a monotheistic one.

k, sure.

Originally posted by Deadline
There is no confusion. Im just pointing out that if we exist there are other beings more powerful than us and the concept of gods is not such an irrational idea.

Ok, fine (again). 'cept I wouldn't call them gods. I'd just call them beings more powerful than us. There's no need to insert religion where it will just create murky meanings.

Originally posted by Deadline
When the wind is blowing and there an earthquake it may not actually be what you think it is. It could actually be a highier lifeform. What you think is going on could be something else entirely.

We've had this particular discussion before. But. Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely, plausible, rational, etc.? No. We know what causes earthquakes. And while it could be something else, it's irrational to believe in something with no evidence when there is very, very refined evidence for a non-god explanation.

I have no problem with admitting that all kinds of this are possible, including gods, God, etc. But please understand the distinction between possible and plausible.

Originally posted by Deadline
Except im not doing that. If you have a defintion and something fits into it its not semantics. A rock would not fit into a defintion of what a god is.

A Christian's definition of God or gods wouldn't fit yours. Yours doesn't fit mine. And if I defined God to be all of the universe, a rock would indeed be God and our definitions would be incompatible. So yes. Semantics. This is the very definition of a semantic discussion.

Originally posted by Digi
...Deadline: how does this affect your worldview? What is gained, or what changes, from referring to ourselves as gods instead of humans...?
Originally posted by Deadline
Don't see how thats relevant really.Still, c'mon, share. It could help us understand your POV.

But if you prefer to keep it private, das cool.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, fine (again). 'cept I wouldn't call them gods. I'd just call them beings more powerful than us.

Then 95% of gods in human history wouldn't qualify as gods. I'd say your definition is a pretty terrible one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then 95% of gods in human history wouldn't qualify as gods. I'd say your definition is a pretty terrible one.

Argh. Are you going to play semantics with me too, Sym? I'll stick to a point shakya made earlier to give you my definition. Gods of myth didn't adhere to the physical laws of the universe. If they transcended such laws, as Zeus and the like do, then yes they're gods. If they adhere to such rules, however powerful, they are not gods. As powerful as gods, perhaps. But not gods in and of themselves. Thor's a god, for example...he uses non-causal magic. Doctor Who is not. Potentially as powerful, but through science.

But the point was aimed at Deadline's logic, which was to refer to humans as gods for no discernible reason that he's been able to give to us. He was saying he'd call powerful aliens gods, and similar points. As such, I stand by my point, exactly how it was worded, because your objections to it here are coming from a different perspective than the context it was originally intended for.

Originally posted by Digi
Argh. Are you going to play semantics with me too, Sym? I'll stick to a point shakya made earlier to give you my definition. Gods of myth didn't adhere to the physical laws of the universe. If they transcended such laws, as Zeus and the like do, then yes they're gods. If they adhere to such rules, however powerful, they are not gods. As powerful as gods, perhaps. But not gods in and of themselves. Thor's a god, for example...he uses non-causal magic. Doctor Who is not. Potentially as powerful, but through science.


Argh! Thats nonsense. There are lots of people who don't think that gods use magic its just a highier form of physics. If you want to follow that defintion its fine but stop trying to pretend that im just inventing something.

Its ridiculous its as this the athiests had some convention and just decided that they have the only correct defintion for what a god is. Millions of people disagree with that point of view. This is why im saying you are missing the point and just ignoring what im saying.

Stop pretending thats the only correct defintion and im making shit up.

Originally posted by Mindship
Still, c'mon, share. It could help us understand your POV.

But if you prefer to keep it private, das cool.

Sorry not ignoring you im just kinda busy.

Originally posted by Deadline
Argh! Thats nonsense. There are lots of people who don't think that gods use magic its just a highier form of physics. If you want to follow that defintion its fine but stop trying to pretend that im just inventing something.

Its ridiculous its as this the athiests had some convention and just decided that they have the only correct defintion for what a god is. Millions of people disagree with that point of view. This is why im saying you are missing the point and just ignoring what im saying.

Stop pretending thats the only correct defintion and im making shit up.



Sorry not ignoring you im just kinda busy.

Deadline, you can believe anything you want to believe. But if you get on this forum and make claims that your belief is fact, then do not become tweaked if someone confronts you on that belief. It is your responsibility to support your ideas. If you are going to convince anyone that what you believe is true, then you need to look at your belief from every direction. We are simply helping you with that. If you don't want anyone to challenge your ideas, then don't debate anyone on the subject.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Deadline, you can believe anything you want to believe. But if you get on this forum and make claims that your belief is fact, then do not become tweaked if someone confronts you on that belief.



Its not a fact that lots of religous people think that their beliefs can't be explained through science? Ok I guess im wrong. Yes thats a fact.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

It is your responsibility to support your ideas. If you are going to convince anyone that what you believe is true, then you need to look at your belief from every direction. We are simply helping you with that. If you don't want anyone to challenge your ideas, then don't debate anyone on the subject.

I don't have to convince anybody because it a matter of an opinion wether my defintion is correct or not. The problem is you guys are pretending that your defintion is the only traditional point of view.

In all honesty I just simply think that in the same way Christians use the devil to refute science, athiests just use science to refute religious beliefs. If science can be used to explain anything religous you just lie to yourselves and pretend that it changes what it is.

You're just basically lying to yoursellf and ignoring what im saying. You're not debating you are arguing the same way a Christian would.

Originally posted by Digi
k, sure.

Fine.

Originally posted by Digi

Ok, fine (again). 'cept I wouldn't call them gods. I'd just call them beings more powerful than us. There's no need to insert religion where it will just create murky meanings.


Thats up to you. Other people would.

Originally posted by Digi

We've had this particular discussion before. But. Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely, plausible, rational, etc.? No. We know what causes earthquakes. And while it could be something else, it's irrational to believe in something with no evidence when there is very, very refined evidence for a non-god explanation.

I have no problem with admitting that all kinds of this are possible, including gods, God, etc. But please understand the distinction between possible and plausible.



Yes and again I understand the difference its still possible and plausible. You just don't define them as gods.

Originally posted by Digi

A Christian's definition of God or gods wouldn't fit yours. Yours doesn't fit mine. And if I defined God to be all of the universe, a rock would indeed be God and our definitions would be incompatible. So yes. Semantics. This is the very definition of a semantic discussion.

So what? The fact of the matter is humans fit the defintion of a pagan god. If it doesn't fit your opinion of what a god is thats up to you but don't try and sit there and pretend like im making shit up.

Originally posted by Deadline
Its not a fact that lots of religous people think that their beliefs can't be explained through science? Ok I guess im wrong. Yes thats a fact.



I don't have to convince anybody because it a matter of an opinion wether my defintion is correct or not. The problem is you guys are pretending that your defintion is the only traditional point of view.

In all honesty I just simply think that in the same way Christians use the devil to refute science, athiests just use science to refute religious beliefs. If science can be used to explain anything religous you just lie to yourselves and pretend that it changes what it is.

You're just basically lying to yoursellf and ignoring what im saying. You're not debating you are arguing the same way a Christian would.

We are not talking about if people believe something or not. We are talking about rather humans can be defined as gods. You are redirecting the argument, and building a straw man.

BTW I'm not an atheist, and I'm a very religious person. My religion agrees with science completely. If your beliefs do not align with science, then it is not science's fault.

How am I lying to myself? Also, I am not ignoring what you are saying, but I am disagreeing with you. Do you always get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you? If you do, then I think it is because your point is too weak, and you know it, but can't admit it.

Originally posted by Deadline
...

So what? The fact of the matter is humans fit the defintion of a pagan god. If it doesn't fit your opinion of what a god is thats up to you but don't try and sit there and pretend like im making shit up.

Pagan god? Now that is new. You are not telling us everything. The term pagan god is an insult from Christians, that was, in the past, usually followed by being killed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are not talking about if people believe something or not. We are talking about rather humans can be defined as gods. You are redirecting the argument, and building a straw man.


Its not a straw man argument your not getting it. The point is if people believe that supernatural can be explained by science human being scan be defined as gods and lots of people don't have a problem with seeing gods as just more powerful versions of ourselves.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

BTW I'm not an atheist, and I'm a very religious person. My religion agrees with science completely. If your beliefs do not align with science, then it is not science's fault.

Well it seems maybe you just don't understand what im saying.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

How am I lying to myself? Also, I am not ignoring what you are saying, but I am disagreeing with you. Do you always get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you? If you do, then I think it is because your point is too weak, and you know it, but can't admit it.

I get bent out of shape when people ignore the points im making, theres a difference between ignoring somebody and disagreeing.

Your saying that if science can be used to explain a god then it doesn't fit the definition of what god is. Heres the problem and this is what im finding irritating, you are acting like this is the only traditional point of view of the defintion. This is the reason why humans can't be gods because eventhough they can fit the criteria of what a god in some ways they are not supernatural. What im trying to explain to you and you don't seem to be getting into your head thats not essential. If its not essential then human beings can be defined as gods.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Pagan god? Now that is new. You are not telling us everything. The term pagan god is an insult from Christians, that was, in the past, usually followed by being killed.


Thats exactly what im talking about. Which clearly illustrates all this time you dont seem to be getting it. Why are we using The Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is?

No it isn't new. Paganism is new...wow.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thats exactly what im talking about. Which clearly illustrates all this time you dont seem to be getting it. Why are we using The Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is?

It is not my responsibility to know what you are talking about, when you have not stated what you are talking about. If no one understands you, then it is your fault.

Why do I use the Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is? I do not do that intentionally. I have a habit of restricting what I talk about to the thing I know about. I was raised as a Christian, and I understand Christianity very well. I asked you earlier to post a link to the definition of god that you are using, but you said you were too tired. Also, from my point of view, the Christian god is a pagan god, and there is no difference as far as truth is concerned.

I think if we redefine the word god enough, then what you are saying is true. However, who gave you the right to redefine a word like god? If we are going to redefine words, then I should be allowed to do the same. I say god means the universe.

Originally posted by Deadline
...
No it isn't new. Paganism is new...wow.

New from you...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is not my responsibility to know what you are talking about, when you have not stated what you are talking about. If no one understands you, then it is your fault.


Nope. I mentioned pagan gods and I explained how they were different.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Why do I use the Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is? I do not do that intentionally. I have a habit of restricting what I talk about to the thing I know about. I was raised as a Christian, and I understand Christianity very well. I asked you earlier to post a link to the definition of god that you are using, but you said you were too tired. Also, from my point of view, the Christian god is a pagan god, and there is no difference as far as truth is concerned.

I didn't post a defintion but I explained to you how they differ. You might think that the Christian God is pagan but hes not the same as the Norse Gods.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I think if we redefine the word god enough, then what you are saying is true. However, who gave you the right to redefine a word like god? If we are going to redefine words, then I should be allowed to do the same. I say god means the universe.



Which is why im getting bent out of shape, I know the difference between disagreeing and arguing which is what you are doing.

Im not redefining anything. The Christian defintion of what god is not the only acceptable and traditional view of what a gods is. You are taking a defintion of god and pretending like thats the only correct one. I explained this to you a hundred times already.

Originally posted by Deadline
Nope. I mentioned pagan gods and I explained how they were different.



I didn't post a defintion but I explained to you how they differ. You might think that the Christian God is pagan but hes not the same as the Norse Gods.



Which is why im getting bent out of shape, I know the difference between disagreeing and arguing which is what you are doing.

Im not redefining anything. The Christian defintion of what god is not the only acceptable and traditional view of what a gods is. You are taking a defintion of god and pretending like thats the only correct one. I explained this to you a hundred times already.

You exaggerate a lot.

Does everyone always disagree with you, and misunderstand you? If so...

By any definition that does exist, humans cannot be defined as gods. A half human and half god is a demigod.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You exaggerate a lot.

Does everyone always disagree with you, and misunderstand you? If so...

By any definition that does exist, humans cannot be defined as gods. A half human and half god is a demigod.

You are now trolling. Im done with you.

Originally posted by Deadline
You are now trolling. Im done with you.

So, you consider someone challenging you to be trolling?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You exaggerate a lot.

In all fairness I can't be exaggerating because heres were I explain the difference.


Originally posted by Deadline


Take the Norse gods . The Norse gods were born, and they die. They did not create the universe they were created by the universe and played a part in creating it. Just like humans. Norse gods are not all-powerful, ominpresent or ominpotent and neither are humans.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Does everyone always disagree with you, and misunderstand you? If so...

Nope.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

By any definition that does exist, humans cannot be defined as gods. A half human and half god is a demigod.

But in heathenism whole tribes have called themselves gods. The word god comes from the old norse goth it evolved into god the same way Othin evolved into Odin.

Originally posted by Deadline
In all fairness I can't be exaggerating because heres were I explain the difference.

Nope.

But in heathenism whole tribes have called themselves gods. The word god comes from the old norse goth it evolved into god the same way Othin evolved into Odin.

However, all gods have one thing in common: they are considered to be more powerful then humans. To say that humans are gods is to diminish this basic definition. Even where cultures have deified a person, that person was given powers greater then all other humans.

In the past, it may have been common to deify a leader, but today that is cultural taboo. Definitions change, as humans change. Therefore, to say humans can be considered gods is not acceptable under a modern definition.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, all gods have one thing in common: they are considered to be more powerful then humans. To say that humans are gods is to diminish this basic definition. Even where cultures have deified a person, that person was given powers greater then all other humans.

Ok but I think we went over this. Its relative that still doesn't mean that humans can't fit the defintion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

In the past, it may have been common to deify a leader, but today that is cultural taboo. Definitions change, as humans change. Therefore, to say humans can be considered gods is not acceptable under a modern definition.

I once called myself svartgoth meaning black god. No heathens freaked out.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok but I think we went over this. Its relative that still doesn't mean that humans can't fit the defintion.

Humans do not fit the current definition of a god. If you are going to use archaic definitions, then I can use Buddhist definitions, and therefore, gods do not exist.

Originally posted by Deadline
I once called myself svartgoth meaning black god. No heathens freaked out.

I got freaked out. I didn't know why at the time, but now...

.

Originally posted by Deadline
Current defintion according to who? The Christian defintion should not the only one referred to.

Most of the time I would zing you for using popularity to support your claim, but definitions are the one time that popularity counts.

Originally posted by Deadline
Are you telling me that the heathen definition of a god is inccorrect? Of course not its a matter of opinion.

I'm telling you that all gods are just a part of mythology, and not real.

Originally posted by Deadline
Uhhhhhh. Lets be adult about this.

I've done that for most of my life. I'm tired of it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most of the time I would zing you for using popularity to support your claim, but definitions are the one time that popularity counts.


and lots of people think that gods are just extremely powerful beings and not neccesarily supernatural. Even if you look at the defintion of what supernatural is one of the defintions is that it seems to break the laws of nature.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I'm telling you that all gods are just a part of mythology, and not real.


Yeah but I explained this to you already. No offence this is another point you didn't get, im not trying to be a jerk here. As I said fiction is often a creation for what is plausible.

Originally posted by Deadline
and lots of people think that gods are just extremely powerful beings and not neccesarily supernatural. Even if you look at the defintion of what supernatural is one of the defintions is that it seems to break the laws of nature.

That would be a reasonable definition.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yeah but I explained this to you already. No offence this is another point you didn't get, im not trying to be a jerk here. As I said fiction is often a creation for what is plausible.

You asked me what I was telling you. I am not going to tell you something I do not believe. I truly believe that gods are part of mythology, and not real. In other words, all god are equal in that they are all products of the mind.

Originally posted by Deadline
Stop pretending thats the only correct defintion and im making shit up.

And stop attacking words I've never said. I never claimed to have the only correct definition for a god. In fact, I went out of my way to state that the definition I used was only my opinion, no one else's. In fact, that's part of the hilarity of our debate here: there's as many definitions of God and gods as there are people to believe in them. Anything could be a god, or nothing could be. But everything in the universe exists in a causal world dictated by our physical laws. Call the different aspects of it what you will, but that much remains.

You insist on reiterating that something with no evidence is not only possible but plausible. And I'm not talking about your alien pagan gods, but things like a higher entity being the cause of earthquakes instead of plate tectonics, which is an example you brought up, not I. Possible, sure. Plausible, hell no. But fine, whatever. You're unequivocally wrong. That's my strident opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no headway is being made.

Everything else you're saying is relatively reasonable, if needlessly obtuse. If you focus on the common ground with others instead of trying to make every point contentious, you'd at least be able to come to an understanding with us instead of acting like "we just don't get it" as you've repeatedly claimed.