From: stumper 

Ray Fischer wrote:
> stumper   wrote:
>> satyr wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:22:46 -0400, stumper

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> satyr wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:48:16 -0400, stumper

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> satyr wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:58:00 -0400, stumper

>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> satyr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:18:44 -0400,
stumper 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Conscious supreme being who
created the universe and is likely
>>>>>>>>>>> omnipotent and omniscient.
>>>>>>>>>> Gee, you are such a traditionalist.
>>>>>>>>>> Still good enough.
>>>>>>>>>> Don't forget that we don't have to
be a physicalist here.
>>>>>>>>> I would call myself a materialist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'being'?
>>>>>>>>> Entity, unit, item.  The term is
general.  The importance lies in the
>>>>>>>>> modifiers (conscious, supreme) and the
further description.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is God directly or indirectly
observable by humans?
>>>>>>>>> No, because he does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should God be observable to exist?
>>>>>>> No, but he must exist to be observable.
>>>>>> Does the universe exist?
>>>>> Yes, we can observe it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What if God is the universe and some?
>>>>> I do not believe the universe has consciousness and
therefore does not
>>>>> meet my definition of God, although maybe it fits yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are the same, then I submit that using the
word "God" is
>>>>> superfluous and confusing.  The fact is that most
religions make a
>>>>> distinction between God and his alleged creation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we still have to prove that God exists?
>>>>> Not if you are going to define God down to some
inanimate object we
>>>>> know to exist.  I know God exists, I flushed Him down
the toilet this
>>>>> morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to prove the God of my definition exists,
then you have to
>>>>> show him to me or prove that the universe has
consciousness.  Good
>>>>> luck.
>>>> "Conscious supreme being who created the universe
>>>> and is likely omnipotent and omniscient"?
>>>>
>>>> Conscious of everything all at once always?
>>>> Do you think that is possible?
>>> Conscious of everything all at once always = omniscient, a preferred
>>> but optional feature of my definition.  Is omniscience possible?  For
>>> God?  Sure, why not.  He is the Supreme Being.  But for my definition
>>> he only has to be conscious, a characteristic possessed by mere humans
>>> and presumably even dogs and cats.
>>>
>>>> What if God is everything there ever was,
>>>> is, will be, and some more?
>>>> It does exist by definition, doesn't it?
>>> No.  By (your) definition, "some more" than
"everything there ever
>>> was, is, will be" must inherently include some territory
that does not
>>> exist and never will.  By your definition, God cannot exist.  And it
>>> still would lack the unitary consciousness which is required by my
>>> definition.
>>>
>>> Is your argument that God is a metaphor?  As a metaphor I would have
>>> no problem saying that God (or Santa Claus) exists.  But this is
>>> semantic prestidigitation.  I am acknowledging the existence of
>>> metaphors, not God (or Santa Claus.)  You are insisting that Santa
>>> Claus be defined as "the universe" and then
demanding that I deny the
>>> existence of Santa Claus.  My definition of Santa Claus (red suit,
>>> white beard, comes down the chimney Christmas Eve to leave presents)
>>> is much more universally accepted and easily refuted.  Your definition
>>> is obscure and meaningless and therefore impossible to refute.
>>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> It is my position that
>> God is not something we can understand so easily.
>
> And yet here you are, insisting that you are qualified to describe
> the nature of God.
>

God is not something
we just cannot understand anything about it, either.

I go by the words of people who insist that they have had certain God experiences.

Do you have any reason not to trust them?

--
~Stumper

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag