god?

1. 60

   tantrumposted 14 years ago

   inorganic people ...
   
   

   replyreport
2. 81

   Don Wposted 14 years ago

   I only see this:
   
   
   
   and this:
   
   
   
   If I've missed something, by all means point me to the relevant page where you say what usage of fact you are using.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Don:
      If that will suffice for you, pls continue with your response. Thanks..

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         hey "quark"
         
         BTW, we have discovered particles infinitely smaller than you, but much more powerful)
         
         are you ignorant, apathetic or just pathetic.
         
         answer: i don't know what you mean, I don't care what you mean, ummm what do you mean by that?
         
         LOLOLOLOLOL

         replyreport
3. 60

   tantrumposted 14 years ago

   
   too much 'intellect' damages the brain

   replyreport
4. 73

   Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8of00uEVRRA
   
   Groundhog drama

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
5. 69

   waynetposted 14 years ago

   Jesus is risen!!!!!!....no not really I just had windy pops..bad ass curry!

   replyreport
6. 81

   Don Wposted 14 years ago

   I'll make the assumption (based on the context) that you are using factual as in scientific fact.
   
   So real: not imaginary
   Fact: objective, verifiable, empirical evidence
   
   With those terms I read the question as:
   
   "Since there is NO scripture in any monotheistic writing that [describes any objective verifiable empirical evidence of] this god thing, then why are so many convinced "it" is [not imaginary]"
   
   The implication inherent in the question is that objective, verifiable evidence leads to the conclusion that something is not imaginary. Therefore lack of such evidence leads to the conclusion that something is imaginary.
   
   There is problems with this reasoning. If there is a lack of objective, verifiable evidence for something it does not follow that the thing is therefore imaginary. Indeed that's a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur, i.e. the conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises.
   
   To refute the implied argument one would only need to think of a single instance where there is a lack of objective, verifiable evidence for something, which is commonly considered to be real, i.e. not imaginary.
   
   One example of such a thing is the human mind. We are unable to offer any objective, verifiable empirical evidence that others (outside of ourselves) have what we experience as a mind. This is because the activities associated with the mind such as thinking cannot be observed directly. We can directly observe electrical activity in the brain etc, but we cannot directly observe another person's thoughts, emotions, memories etc. We can know nothing of another person’s mind, other than through their behaviour, words, etc. It is subjective, rather than objective. This situation is traditionally known as the "problem of other minds". 
   
   The point is that generally it would be considered absurd to believe all human minds outside of our own are imaginary, even though by the standards of the implied argument, we should.
   
   So that argument (lack of objective, verifiable, evidence leads to the conclusion something is imaginary) is invalid. Concluding something is imaginary soley on the basis of lack of evidence is a fallacy. That doesn't mean to say the thing is true or real, it just means that lack of evidence does not logically lead to the conclusion that something is imaginary which is what your implied argument asserts.
   
   So the question asked, albeit an interesting one, is based on reasoning which is unsound. And it would serve no useful purpose to try and answer such a question other than to point out how and why its reasoning is fundamentally unsound. I hope this will suffice.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Don:
      You did alot of typing to miss the point so completely.
      whew!
      Before we can even consider all of what you worked so hard to produce, you must provide me with a definition that "factually" defines this god thing. Fact is something which exists.
      Now once you have provided me with a definition, that would make me realize that this god thing "exists" as a reality (not imagined) I'd be more than happy to sit and "hub" with you about it's potential and other salient factors as to it's relevancy to life and the living...can ya do that?

      replyreport
7. 0

   Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago

   you are continuing the mute ideology set to justify your curiosity of your existence, based on the premise of logic -which defies the parameters of reality -in that, real is that which is tangible. Yet even in this your logic -for lack there of- is to deny the possibility of your actual purpose as a human. Justifying ignorance, for feel good ideologies and discussion. All the while you know, not think, that you are more than you believe.
   You conscious argument only proves further the reality of your limitation as a creation and your inability to logically accept your finite existence. Still you persist to 'discover' that which has been discovered and proved. Scientifically you are no more valuable in your logic than an ape. At least an ape has common sense.
   
   be original, eh. be REALLY logical.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And your statement proves that you really don't understand reality as prescribed as part of the learning process.
      
      Reality exists. It exists free of independent thoughts, desires, will or wishes. Our reality is an objective reality where all is knowable and defined.
      
      Reality exists regardless of what one person thinks.
      
      Something "REAL" is define as in existence. Example: a table exists. The Earth exists. The Universe exists. These are things that are absolute reality. We know they exist, because they been proven to exist, within our reality.
      
      Just in case I missed your point. The ideology trying to be dismissed is mystical inclinations of others. Ignorance is something everyone has, irrelevant whether or not, they are open minded. There are just some thing that some people cannot wrap their minds around, so they choose to not get involved or care to think about it.
      
      The biggest problem I continue to say is that people continue to bring in the "GOD" concept into reality or speak of it, as though it's a real thing, with substance. And, it's not.
      
      Our reality is defined and the "GOD" concept was debunked when mankind began scoping out the mind for further knowledge.
      
      I don't see a problem with qwark's question, because a factual based definition, would solidify the "GOD" concept as real.
      
      The problem is it cannot be done, just by the knowledge or wisdom, presently obtained by Humankind. The "GOD" concept was created by mankind, but cannot ever be defined. It was meant to be vague and misleading, so as to keep people running in circles looking for answers.
      
      Sorry, just rambling.

      replyreport
8. 81

   Don Wposted 14 years ago

   I think I must have indeed missed your point.
   
   You're implying there isn't a definition which "factually defines this god thing", i.e. a definition which describes "this god thing" in a way which is objective and verifiable. Is that the case?
   
   If so, I agree. There is no such definition anywhere. There is a theological definition of the christian "god thing" (omni this, omni that etc.) but no definition of the type you mean.
   
   So I'm taking the next step and looking at the consequence of that. You're implying the conclusion must be that "the god thing" is imaginary. I'm saying the lack of the definition you seek does not logically lead to that conclusion because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
   
   So I'm simply pointing out that lack of an objective, verifiable, empirical description of something doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that it's imaginary. If that were the case, many of the things we commonly believe are real would have to be considered imaginary.
   
   Provide you with the definition you seek? There isn't one anywhere. What does that mean? See above. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make beyond that.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      don:
      Easy.
      What is this god thing you speak of?
      Can't put it more straight forward than that? :-)

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         relationary parallel of the "need to know"
         
         what else you got quark?

         replyreport
9. 0

   Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago

   learning process? HA!
   your defunct premise of learning is to reason without actual tangibility and define your inadequacy as a basis for self education, explanation and logic?
   HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
   what kind of intellectual dope have you been smoking, Cagsil.
   You above all the "gods of OZ"
   
   Please, man. I can get on my soap box too. But unless you come at me with more than regurgitated, pointless and otherwise hackneyed methods of understanding your pointless, pitiful and otherwise unprovable existence, then, I am sorry to say, YOU are in the same class as the rest -useless, foreboding, irrelevant and anatomically no more exiting than eating large quantities of chocolate and taking a sh!te afterward.
   
   And especially since you attempt to come to defense of an otherwise pointless defense of an apthetic aka ape of an ideal.
   
   Ha!!!!!!!!!
   
   logical my arse.
   there is absolutely no logic in quarks question.
   NONE!
   If you had even a clue of logic you would end this discussion by means unacceptable to the quo.
   
   " If you can't bark with the big dogs, biatch, stay on the freakin' porch"

   replyreport
10. 73

    Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

    This all comes down to one easily answered question.
    
    What came first the chicken or the egg?
    
    Once we figure this out the rest will just fall in place.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       The Farmer

       replyreport
       1. 73

          Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Uh oh did you just mention a creator.  *gasps*

          replyreport
    2. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       naw Arthur:
       We "know" what both the chicken and the egg are.
       If we didn't, we'd first have to define them, understand them, make meaning of them and then make that decision...or at least consider an answer.
       We have to do the same with this unknown and unknowable god thing.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          And when are you going to do this ?

          replyreport
       2. 71

          aguasilverposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Seems that nearly 3 billion people do not have that problem, it's the 6 million atheists who seem to be blind to it.
          
          Romans 1:25
          
          .....who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Yes but all are children of god, they will bloom to their god self one day .

             replyreport
11. 60

    tantrumposted 14 years ago

    Maybe next year ?
    

    replyreport
12. 60

    tantrumposted 14 years ago

    replyreport
13. 60

    saltposted 14 years ago

    yes?

    replyreport
14. 81

    Don Wposted 14 years ago

    What is this "god thing" some people speak of?
    
    I don't know. I know what some people believe the "god thing" is and I know some people don't believe the "god thing" exists at all.
    
    Your point is . . . ? What do you infer from that?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Don:
       I infer that this god thing is but imagined and not worthy of consideration.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          The answer lies more in meditation than debating.

          replyreport
          1. 64

             AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I'm actually inclined to agree with that.

             replyreport
15. 81

    Don Wposted 14 years ago

    qwark,
    
    Therein lies the problem. The reasoning of the argument you present is faulty. Your argument looks like this:
    
    1 X cannot be scientifically described
    2 X is therefore imagined and not worthy of consideration
    
    Can you see why (as it stands) the argument is invalid?
    
    To be valid, the premises must always and only lead to one conclusion. This is not the case here. Here the conclusion is disconnected from the premise.
    
    This is a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur which is Latin meaning "it doesn't follow". Stating the assumptions made by the argument explicitly as premises would help in terms of validity, but would not help the soundness of the argument, i.e. whether it is true or not. That's a separate question that hasn't been addressed.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Don:
       Damn! You are verbose....lolol
       Now pls, before we carry on, what is this god thing?... in terms other than opinion and conjecture.
       See how concise and precise my questions are?
       Try to follow suit.
       thanks...:-)

       replyreport
16. 0

    Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago

    
    it is not necessary to consider a question, not its opponent -an answer. Both are relational parallels of The Need to Know having no core premise for Purity.
    

    replyreport
17. 81

    Don Wposted 14 years ago

    qwark,
    
    very well, in a nutshell
    
    There is no definition like the one you seek.
    So you infer the "god thing" is "imaginary and not worth consideration".
    That inference is invalid for the reasons above.
    You either agree or you don't.
    Which and why?
    
    (interesting game this metaphysics in a nutshell)

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       don:
       Beats the hell outa me.
       If this god thing can't be defined in other than opinion and conjecture, it remains a mystery to me why "it" is so passionately believed in by so many.
       I'll probably take that question to my deathbed..:-)

       replyreport
18. 81

    Don Wposted 14 years ago

    qwark
    
    Look at it this way
    "The mind" can't be defined other than by opinion and conjecture.
    "The mind" is only a concept.
    We can't factually describe it.
    Our knowledge of it is purely subjective.
    We can't objectively observe another's mind.
    Do you believe "the mind" exists?
    Why?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Don:
       cogito ergo sum!  :-)

       replyreport
       1. 64

          TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          You know...it's funny you should say that, qwark.
          
          God says *almost* the exact same thing.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Spider:
             God? God who/what?   :-)

             replyreport
             1. 64

                TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                qwark: I already answered this for you once before. God=the entity that created the Universe we're living in: I know some people find it hard to believe that the the universe was created, since random explosions often result in intricate universes...but you asked, there's the answer.

                replyreport
          2. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Another one who knows what god says.
             
             You mean you read it in a book........................

             replyreport
             1. 64

                TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Mark: I have attempted civilized, friendly, rational discourse with you; I was deceived by your many hubs and followers into thinking that you might be a respectful person. But it is clear to me from multiple responses that you do not even completely read the posts of others, especially once you've labeled them a certain way in your mind. Or else you could find MUCH better (and enlightening) things to criticize.
                
                You have *no* idea where I get my information. I'm sorry that you have killed the god inside you and you can't hear him anymore. What god has said is written in many places, not just one book. And there's more than one person around here and throughout history who can hear what he has to say.
                
                If you cannot at least be respectful and remotely tolerant of others you, and others like you, are not worth communicating with.

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I am sorry - You said you know what god said.
                   
                   And I am supposed to respect that?
                   
                   <snipped - no personal attacks in the forums>

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      behold, the future of man kind.

                      replyreport
       2. 81

          Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          qwark
          
          cogito ergo sum is subjective
          you can't define the mind other than by opinion and conjecture
          but you still believe your mind exists
          you experience your own mind
          experiencing your mind leads to your belief it exists
          so the belief your mind exists is based on the belief you are experiencing it
          leading to: you believe it, but you can't define it factually

          replyreport
          1. 60

             qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             don:
             I accept the fact that I, consciously, experience "mind."
             Now how can I "factually" and consciously, experience this "undefinable" god thing?

             replyreport
             1. 81

                Don Wposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                qwark,
                
                you experience "mind".
                (thoughts, feelings, memories, ideas, streams of consciousness etc)
                whether you really do or not is debatable.
                you perceive something and call it experiencing "mind".
                you seem to experience "mind"
                and you form the belief that "mind" exists.
                
                you experience "god thing".
                (you feel loved, forgiven, blessed, enlightened by something beyond yourself etc)
                whether you really do or not is debatable.
                you perceive something and call it experiencing "god thing".
                you seem to experience "god thing"
                and you form the belief that "god thing" exists.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Don W:
                   In ref. to mind, not debateable at all...to me. It may be to you. I can't speak for you.
                   Experience this god thing? Also not debateable. Can't debate anything that can't be defined, known, experienced etc., except as sumthin' existing in the imagination...which can only be done by the "mind," which in your "mind," is undebateable also...:-)

                   replyreport
19. 47

    The Paulposted 14 years ago

    If you say "God has no properties," "God can not be described," or things of that sort, then you need to shut up about god.
    
    If god is so ill-defined then it doesn't have opinions on matters of human sexuality, or behavior in general.  It doesn't connect to or affect our reality in any consistent way, it can't be approached or studied.
    
    If it does have opinions on human affairs, if it does connect to our reality in a consistent fashion, or if it can be approached and studied those are properties it has.  "Scientific Properties," if you must.  And they can be described.  And so the "God can't be described," thing reveals itself as a cop out.

    replyreport
20. 47

    The Paulposted 14 years ago

    To merely describe God as "the entity that created the universe" is exceptionally vague.
    
    Perhaps in the future we develop black-hole power garbage disposal technology.  In this hypothetical future I discover a muffin behind some containers in a cupboard has spoiled and throw it into a black hole to be rid of it.  It then travels back in time, disrupts the quantum vacuum, and creates the universe...
    
    ...and so now God is nothing more than baked goods left in a warm, moist environment too long.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Paul:
       Thank you.:-)

       replyreport
21. 81

    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    qwark wrote:
    
        "Since there is NO scripture in any monotheistic writing that factually defines this god thing, why are so many convinced "it" is real?"
    
    
    I am not so sure they are convinced! Their sub-conscious must be nagging the hell out of them!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Earnest;
       if all they have is "hope," they definitely arent convinced. :-)

       replyreport
    2. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Earnest:
       I finally found that you had read another of my hubs and left a message.
       I ok'd it and responded.
       Thanks for reading my "stuff."

       replyreport
       1. 81

          earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I only read stuff that is well written. I enjoyed your work and will be back to read more. Wish I could write as well as you!

          replyreport
          1. 60

             qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Hi Earnest;
             Wow!
             I think that is the nicest compliment i've gotten since I started writing!
             You've made my day!  :-)
             Thanks!

             replyreport
             1. 81

                earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Your welcome! Not said lightly, you are good!
                

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Hey Earn:
                   I just read your "I love Australia" hub and left a response.  Wait'll you read it.  lol :-)

                   replyreport
                   1. 81

                      earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Looking!

                      replyreport
                      1. 81

                         earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         Thank you very much! I enjoyed your comment immensely!

                         replyreport
22. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    Hey Qwark,
    
    Did you get what you wanted yet?

    replyreport
23. 70

    Beth100posted 14 years ago

    Hi Earnest!  How are ya Earnest?  Nighty night Earnest!

    replyreport
    1. 81

       earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Beth sleep well. I am fine, hope you are too.

       replyreport
24. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    The fastest conversation to ever take place.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Beth100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       gotta be quick, or you'll miss!
       
       Night there Cags and Earnest!  Hugs and k's to ya both!!!

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Now you blew it. Now, you turned the fastest conversation in the most meaningless conversation, because it's off topic.
          
          Damn women. always getting men distracted in some way, shape or form. j/k

          replyreport
          1. 70

             Beth100posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             you never complained before!  still luv ya though!  BUMP  night!

             replyreport
       2. 81

          earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          And to you Beth!

          replyreport
25. 81

    Don Wposted 14 years ago

    Nope, it can fit it into a smaller nutshell than that:
    
    If (for whatever reason) you genuinely believe you have experienced X.
    Then you will form the belief X exists.
    Your belief that X exists is then grounded in your (apparent) experience of X.

    replyreport
26. 0

    Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago

    quark, you should read: The Tao of Physics.
    
    It is one of underscores of my present work: Quantus Philo (loosely translated "How Great Free Will" ).
    
    i am of a projective mind, as well as subjective and absorptive. In truth, we all are. That is the beauty of the human being.
    one of the chapters i make note and proof of a genetic map of the universe and the human brain -so very similar.
    
    
    don w:
    you sound like a true philosopher and a fan of Hume.
    you cannot 'experience X' if you know nothing of X, and even if you do know something of X your personal interpretation of the experienced is marred by your logical explanation of it.
    so where does that leave you: only to understand or be the infinite X experience, never swaying left or right for knowing or considering, just being in X always.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Twenty:
       Good luck with your writing.
       There is no man alive or who has ever existed that has all the answers.
       All one can do, is read the thoughts and opinions of others and consider them all.
       Then, if one is so inspired, one can amalgamate all one considers to be of import and create, hopefully, logical  concepts upon which one can guide one's life.
       It's as simple as that. :-)

       replyreport
27. 60

    tantrumposted 14 years ago

    God is all knowing.
    That's why he left.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       tantrum:
       ...amen!
       ...jeez, wait, what the hell is this god thing that left?  :-)

       replyreport
28. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

    Quack, quack, quack and quack! Basura! Ole!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Quack quack quack!
       I'm sure you can relate. With the  Spanish word, I mean
       

       replyreport
29. 81

    Don Wposted 14 years ago

    The belief that your mind exists is not debatable to you, but the experience your belief is grounded in is subjective. Therefore the existence of any mind outside our own is very much debatable.
    
    If someone asked you to define “mind” you could not without using opinion and conjecture. If someone asked you to prove the existence of minds outside your own, again you could not objectively do so.
    
    So minds (outside our own) can’t be objectively defined, can’t be experienced, can’t be known. Therefore by your own reasoning minds outside our own are figments of the imagination, i.e. they do not exist.
    
    But such a belief would be absurd in everyday life because we do believe in the existence of minds outside our own. So either we are all entirely wrong, or being able to objectively define something is irrelevant to the belief it exists.
    
    
    
    Whoever said “god thing” can’t be experienced? Debatable experience does not equate to false experience. Unless you can categorically show a theists apparent experience of a deity is false you can’t say say it is false. Of course that doesn’t make it true. But it does mean the most you can say is you think it’s likely to be false, or that you don’t know. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. Moreover believing that something is likely to be false does not mean it is false. Therefore you cannot decribe “god thing” as something which cannot be experienced.

    replyreport