Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God Exists

Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2009 5:48:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think some people here might appreciate this debate: http://www.debate.org...

If nothing else, it's food for thought ... and for discussions in the forums.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2009 6:44:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I searched your opening argument, but I couldn't find your argument for why God exists.

A lot of good philosophy though.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2009 10:17:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Of course god exists. We have elsewhere in this forum learned that words are defined of what letters they do NOT contain. And god and dog does not contain the same letter, so hence god and dog are the same. And dogs exist.

TADA! .-)
So prove me wrong, then.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 6:50:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I too did not see any arguments for why God exists. You quote a Bible verse that says God exists and discuss a lot of traits that you think God has, but neither of those are arguments for the existence of God.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 8:07:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 6:50:32 AM, Floid wrote:
I too did not see any arguments for why God exists. You quote a Bible verse that says God exists and discuss a lot of traits that you think God has, but neither of those are arguments for the existence of God.

The bible verse (and other religious verses - the debate wasn't necessarily supportive of Christianity) was used to establish the worship aspect of the definition of God. The argument for why God exists is as follows (and clear in the debate):

1. People worshiped something they did not understand and called God. The unifying qualities of this phenomenon are discussed in my sources.
2. Information is exchanged in nature through various processes that inform each other. Evidence of this is provided in the debate if you check my sources.
3. This exchange is present in all things, including people.
4. If God is this exchange thing people worshiped and did not understand, then God exists. Evidence for this is produced by way of the descriptive similarities of the characterizations of the two phenomena.
5. If, on balance, the most likely explanation for the belief in God is the recognition of this phenomenon, then theory that God is this phenomenon is valid. My opponent presented no theory to the contrary. Therefore, the theory was unopposed (valid).
6. If the theory is valid then the best conceptual model produced by the debate to understand where the concept of God came from is that God is this process. If God is this process, God exists. Therefore, it is rational to believe God exists.

Does it prove in the absolute sense that God exists? No, no more than I can prove that I myself actually exist. However, it is the best theory put forward in the debate. My opponent did try and argue that the Bible was fiction. Fine, I am inclined to believe that most of it was. My concern though wasn't to use the Bible to prove God, but to show elements that were ascribed to God and common with other depictions of the ineffable essential force. My opponent did not propose a solution for the similarity of these depictions outside of a claim of fiction. So, on balance, God existing is still the most likely reason. Of course, this is God as I have described it, not as God is commonly held to be.

Also, the debate has had 3 votes and no RFDs. If people are going to vote on it, could you at least explain why the votes are going that way? Note that I was not the instigator of this debate, I merely accepted it as an exceptional challenge. It seems awfully unfair, considering this, for people to vote straight sevens without explaining how, for example, my conduct and sources were worse than my opponent's. Just a small gripe. Ordinarily it wouldn't bother me, but this debate took some time, effort, and thought, which makes this state of affairs is annoying.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 8:37:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:07:09 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
1. People worshiped something they did not understand and called God.

Begging the question. You are assuming that what they worship exists.

2. Information is exchanged in nature through various processes that inform each other. Evidence of this is provided in the debate if you check my sources.

This sentence is devoid of meaning.

4. If God is this exchange thing people worshiped and did not understand, then God exists.

There is no indication that this "exchange thing" exists, nor that people worship it.

Evidence for this is produced by way of the descriptive similarities of the characterizations of the two phenomena.

No, it isn't.

5. If, on balance, the most likely explanation for the belief in God is the recognition of this phenomenon, then theory that God is this phenomenon is valid.

That does not follow, even ignoring the other logical errors you did.

However, it is the best theory put forward in the debate.

Possibly, once again proving that proving god is a pointless exercise doomed to failure.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 8:57:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:37:57 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:07:09 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
1. People worshiped something they did not understand and called God.

Begging the question. You are assuming that what they worship exists.

Nope. I'm assuming that they had a cause to worship something, which requires that there be a thing that inspires worship. They clearly did worship, and worshiping for worshiping's sake makes no sense. Now, maybe some people worshiped for a variety of personal reasons eventually, but,as we know from people who claim to have spoken with a god today, the first person or persons in any society had to propound the idea based upon observations of something or else be dismissed as madmen.

2. Information is exchanged in nature through various processes that inform each other. Evidence of this is provided in the debate if you check my sources.

This sentence is devoid of meaning.

Please explain.

4. If God is this exchange thing people worshiped and did not understand, then God exists.

There is no indication that this "exchange thing" exists, nor that people worship it.

Information exists and is exchanged. I just provided you with information when I typed this sentence; you are reading it and internalizing its data. Or you could absorb it using magic. Your choice on what to believe, I guess.

Evidence for this is produced by way of the descriptive similarities of the characterizations of the two phenomena.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. XD Please, explain this further.

5. If, on balance, the most likely explanation for the belief in God is the recognition of this phenomenon, then theory that God is this phenomenon is valid.

That does not follow, even ignoring the other logical errors you did.

How so? How is this different than believing in evolution which, on balance, is a better explanation than magic?

However, it is the best theory put forward in the debate.

Possibly, once again proving that proving god is a pointless exercise doomed to failure.

Proving a god in the absolute sense certainly is, just as proving anything to exist absolutely is ... but I think that the standards for this debate ought to be reasonable, not absurd.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 9:31:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:57:42 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:

Proving a god in the absolute sense certainly is, just as proving anything to exist absolutely is ... but I think that the standards for this debate ought to be reasonable, not absurd.

Well you took on the debate to prove that God existed, you should have realised that the standard should be rather high!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 10:11:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 8:57:42 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:37:57 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:07:09 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
1. People worshiped something they did not understand and called God.

Begging the question. You are assuming that what they worship exists.

Nope. I'm assuming that they had a cause to worship something

Yes. And that is still a false assumption. You are, as I pointed out, assuming that God exists. That is begging the question.

They clearly did worship, and worshiping for worshiping's sake makes no sense.

This is correct. Worship makes no sense.

as we know from people who claim to have spoken with a god today

Again, you are begging the question. Stop assuming that God exists in your "proof" for the existence of God.

the first person or persons in any society had to propound the idea based upon observations of something or else be dismissed as madmen.

Well, yes and no. You need to put yourself into the mind of prehistoric man. They live in a world they don't understand at all. Sometimes it rains, sometimes not. There are strange and dangerous things, from lions to earthquakes. It is natural for somebody with so little knowledge of how the world works to assume there is some living power behind all this danger. You will "animate" things like thunder. Something has to cause it, right. And thunder is obviously way more powerful than even a lion. So, you assume there is anima behind everything. Trees are not only living, but has some sort of spirits in them, streams as well. This is the origin of religion. It is simply the superstitious idea that there is intelligence behind everything in the universe.

So yes, they observed something: Nature. And they didn't understand it, so hence they imagined powers and beings behind what happened, and started worshiping it. Your mistake is to think that therefore these powers and beings must exist. This is incorrect.

2. Information is exchanged in nature through various processes that inform each other. Evidence of this is provided in the debate if you check my sources.

This sentence is devoid of meaning.

Please explain.

You are not really saying anything. Except "there is information exchange" which is both obvious and irrelevant.

Information exists and is exchanged. I just provided you with information when I typed this sentence; you are reading it and internalizing its data. Or you could absorb it using magic. Your choice on what to believe, I guess.

This still says nothing and has nothing to do with anything else you say.

Evidence for this is produced by way of the descriptive similarities of the characterizations of the two phenomena.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. XD Please, explain this further.

There is no evidence provided for anything here. The only thing there is are some fluffy words about information and your logical fallacies.

5. If, on balance, the most likely explanation for the belief in God is the recognition of this phenomenon, then theory that God is this phenomenon is valid.

That does not follow, even ignoring the other logical errors you did.

How so? How is this different than believing in evolution which, on balance, is a better explanation than magic?

The difference is that evolution is a scientific explanation for the available facts, while the above are just a statement that does not follow out of your previous statements.

Even if teh most likely explanation for the belief in god is the phenomenons in question, that does NOT mean that god IS those phenomenons. It simply does not follow any more than that the most likely explanation for a gas explosion is a leaky gas tube does not mean that the tube *is* the explosion. It makes no sense.

However, it is the best theory put forward in the debate.

Possibly, once again proving that proving god is a pointless exercise doomed to failure.

Proving a god in the absolute sense certainly is, just as proving anything to exist absolutely is

I'm not talking about the absolute sense. I'm talking about proving God. Stop. No "absolute". You need to prove God, with the same sort of reliability as a scientific theory. You brought up evolution, but in fact evolution is one of the most well-proven scientific theories there is, so I'm not going to hold you to that standard. I think we can go for something softer. Like proving God as well as some part of modern economics,.

... but I think that the standards for this debate ought to be reasonable, not absurd.

They are. And trying to prove God with reasonable standards is a pointless and futile exercise. People way smarter than anybody here have tried and failed for thousands of years.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 10:38:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 10:11:43 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:57:42 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:37:57 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 8:07:09 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
1. People worshiped something they did not understand and called God.

Begging the question. You are assuming that what they worship exists.

Nope. I'm assuming that they had a cause to worship something

Yes. And that is still a false assumption. You are, as I pointed out, assuming that God exists. That is begging the question.

You need to look at what I define as God in the debate. It is not the magical sky daddy. I claim that God is the sum of all information transference. Information transference is observable.

This is correct. Worship makes no sense.

If all things have rational causes, even seeming irrationality must have had rational beginnings. It would be irrational to think otherwise.

Again, you are begging the question. Stop assuming that God exists in your "proof" for the existence of God.

Um ... I was explaining how people who claim to speak with God are pariahs, not that they actually speak with God. Re-read the argument. There is no claim that they actually contact a localized personal deity.

Well, yes and no. You need to put yourself into the mind of prehistoric man. They live in a world they don't understand at all.

Absolutely. Hence, the argument in my debate.

It is natural for somebody with so little knowledge of how the world works to assume there is some living power behind all this danger.

Begging the question. Why is it natural to come to this assumption, when it would be a better survival instinct to just note the danger and try and determine its causes unrelated to a force behind it than to try and appease it? From whence comes this natural predisposition.

So yes, they observed something: Nature. And they didn't understand it, so hence they imagined powers and beings behind what happened, and started worshiping it. Your mistake is to think that therefore these powers and beings must exist. This is incorrect.

I argued that what people called God is a process within nature, not that God is actually a temperamental old man who turns people into salt. I never argued for personalization of a deity, I only sought to prove that a natural process could be considered a being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness worshiped as ruler of the universe. To do this, all I had to do was show that a natural process could be a being and that it was perfect in power, wisdom and goodness and ruled the universe in such a way as to inspire worship. It's technically a semantics argument of sorts, necessitated by the heavy burden placed upon me. :)

You are not really saying anything. Except "there is information exchange" which is both obvious and irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevant. I have argued that that which was known as God is this obvious natural process.

This still says nothing and has nothing to do with anything else you say.

Yes, it does. I was not arguing for a supernatural being. I was arguing that a natural process had been mistaken for something supernatural, and that it still met the definition my opponent proposed.

There is no evidence provided for anything here. The only thing there is are some fluffy words about information and your logical fallacies.

Is it a little bit more understandable now that you understand that I am not arguing for a deity, but for a being?

The difference is that evolution is a scientific explanation for the available facts, while the above are just a statement that does not follow out of your previous statements.

Evolution is awesome and is clearly considered a part of the overall process I have already posited as being that which has been identified as God and incorrectly ascribed supernatural origin.

They are. And trying to prove God with reasonable standards is a pointless and futile exercise. People way smarter than anybody here have tried and failed for thousands of years.

My proof of God does not require proof of any particular god, or any deity. God only had to be a 'being' which I argued was a natural process mistaken for a deity. Is this more understandable now?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 11:39:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 10:38:33 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
You need to look at what I define as God in the debate.

It doesn't matter what you define God as, since you in your logic presumes God exists. And that is still a logical error.

It is not the magical sky daddy. I claim that God is the sum of all information transference. Information transference is observable.

Why do you define God like that? You now define God as something that you know exists, but which has none of the powers normally attached to a God. You could just as well define God as the sum of all radium atoms. We know radium atoms exist. But radium atoms, not even in the total sum, does not make a God, has no godlike powers and did not create the universe.

The sum of all information transference is not a god at all.

This is correct. Worship makes no sense.

If all things have rational causes

Peoples behavior are not always rational in any reasonable sense.

Again, you are begging the question. Stop assuming that God exists in your "proof" for the existence of God.

Um ... I was explaining how people who claim to speak with God are pariahs, not that they actually speak with God. Re-read the argument. There is no claim that they actually contact a localized personal deity.

Then your argument no longer claims anything relevant to the argument.

It is natural for somebody with so little knowledge of how the world works to assume there is some living power behind all this danger.

Begging the question. Why is it natural to come to this assumption

It's not an assumption, it's a statement of how people actually function. Do you deny that people do this?

when it would be a better survival instinct to just note the danger and try and determine its causes unrelated to a force behind it than to try and appease it?

Wow. You now demand of the evolution of our conscious minds that it will predict science. :-) How the heck do you think that would happen? How can such a "survival instinct" develop before science has developed?

From whence comes this natural predisposition.

From our brains.

I argued that what people called God is a process within nature

Yeah, and this is obviously false. What people call "God" is different to different people.

I never argued for personalization of a deity

Neither did I, I have no idea why you bring this up, it's completely irrelevant.

Yes, it does. I was not arguing for a supernatural being. I was arguing that a natural process had been mistaken for something supernatural, and that it still met the definition my opponent proposed.

So in fact, you are arguing AGAINST the existence of God, but claiming that you by doing this are proving God. And you are doing this by in a complicated manner saying "information is being exchanged".

Is it a little bit more understandable now that you understand that I am not arguing for a deity, but for a being?

No. Because you aren't. You are arguing for the information exists (true) and is being exchanged (true) and that people mistake this information exchange for God (nonsensical) and that is therefore is God (logical fallacy).

They are. And trying to prove God with reasonable standards is a pointless and futile exercise. People way smarter than anybody here have tried and failed for thousands of years.

My proof of God does not require proof of any particular god, or any deity.

Your proof of God requires nothing. And it isn't a proof of God. However, I require a proof of God. Any sort of God will do. Information exchange is not a God.

God only had to be a 'being' which I argued was a natural process mistaken for a deity. Is this more understandable now?

Nope. It gets less understandable in fact, as you now claim to not argue for the existence of a God, which is a bit strange, considering that the whole discussion is about the existence of God.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 11:55:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Regebro, I am arguing against the deity concept of God. If you re-read the debate, you will see that I was challenged to prove that God exists. My opponent defined God only as a being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness, that is worshiped as the ruler of the universe. Therefore I set out to prove a being that is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness, that is worshiped as the ruler of the universe. His definition did not require a deity, so I did not argue for a deity. His definition did not call for any one God, and in his comments it was generally agreed that I could argue for any. So I argued that a natural process existed that met his definition of God: a being perfect etc. That was the only way I could win the debate. I could never do so if I proposed a deity concept of God.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 12:06:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 11:55:37 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
If you re-read the debate, you will see that I was challenged to prove that God exists.

Yeah, and the title of this topic is "God Exists". So I was under the impression that you argued for the existence of God. Turns out, you argue *against* the existence of God, and call this non-existence "God". Which seems a bit silly.

Therefore I set out to prove a being that is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness, that is worshiped as the ruler of the universe.

OK. So, when did you change your mind and start arguing against this, without telling anyone? It's a bit confusing, you know.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 12:19:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 12:06:02 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 11:55:37 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
If you re-read the debate, you will see that I was challenged to prove that God exists.

Yeah, and the title of this topic is "God Exists". So I was under the impression that you argued for the existence of God. Turns out, you argue *against* the existence of God, and call this non-existence "God". Which seems a bit silly.

Actually, what I proved was that God was not supernatural or a deity, not that there is no God. See below.

Therefore I set out to prove a being that is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness, that is worshiped as the ruler of the universe.

OK. So, when did you change your mind and start arguing against this, without telling anyone? It's a bit confusing, you know.

I never did, arguably. A being is pretty much anything that exists. A deity, by comparison, is usually conceived of as an intelligent supernatural being with a singular and unique personality. So the definition of being is > than the definition of deity, or at least as I have defined it (and as it is stated on wikipedia). Rather than prove a deity, which is impossible, I decided to prove a being, which is possible. It's a matter of semantics, technically.

Of course, to the extent that this process takes place through us, it is rationally directed. That's where I distinguish between God and the godhead in the debate -- the rational expression of information is the so-called divine force at work, a product of intelligence resultant from the process (that I defined as the godhead) resulting in intelligence.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 12:39:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 12:19:05 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Actually, what I proved was that God was not supernatural or a deity, not that there is no God. See below.

No, you did not prove that there is no God. You just argued for there not being a God. While claiming you argued for there BEING a God.

Foncusing.

OK. So, when did you change your mind and start arguing against this, without telling anyone? It's a bit confusing, you know.

I never did, arguably. A being is pretty much anything that exists. A deity, by comparison, is usually conceived of as an intelligent supernatural being with a singular and unique personality. So the definition of being is > than the definition of deity, or at least as I have defined it (and as it is stated on wikipedia). Rather than prove a deity, which is impossible, I decided to prove a being, which is possible. It's a matter of semantics, technically.

But your arguments are AGAINST a being as well as a deity. You have argued AGAINST the existence of God. Your argument, according to yourself, is that people has mistaken information exchange for God. That is an argument AGAINTS God, both as a deity and as a being. It claims God does not exist, but that humans have mistaken something that clearly is not any sort of god, being or deity, for God.

Of course, to the extent that this process takes place through us, it is rationally directed. That's where I distinguish between God and the godhead in the debate -- the rational expression of information is the so-called divine force at work, a product of intelligence resultant from the process (that I defined as the godhead) resulting in intelligence.

Again, that does not follow from anything you have said in this debate. You just jump freely back and force between different statements, seemingly believing that they follow logically from each other, but they never do.

"Information is being exchanged. Hence, people mistake this for God. Hence God exists. Hence it's not a divinity, but a Being. Hence and intelligence results from the process."

Nothing follows from anything else in your argumentation.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 2:11:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 12:39:07 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/22/2009 12:19:05 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Actually, what I proved was that God was not supernatural or a deity, not that there is no God. See below.

No, you did not prove that there is no God. You just argued for there not being a God. While claiming you argued for there BEING a God.

Foncusing.

Nope. I argued that God was a natural process. You are assuming that God must have some quality that I have never described. What quality is this, and why is it required under the definition used for the debate?

OK. So, when did you change your mind and start arguing against this, without telling anyone? It's a bit confusing, you know.

I never did, arguably. A being is pretty much anything that exists. A deity, by comparison, is usually conceived of as an intelligent supernatural being with a singular and unique personality. So the definition of being is > than the definition of deity, or at least as I have defined it (and as it is stated on wikipedia). Rather than prove a deity, which is impossible, I decided to prove a being, which is possible. It's a matter of semantics, technically.

But your arguments are AGAINST a being as well as a deity. You have argued AGAINST the existence of God. Your argument, according to yourself, is that people has mistaken information exchange for God. That is an argument AGAINTS God, both as a deity and as a being. It claims God does not exist, but that humans have mistaken something that clearly is not any sort of god, being or deity, for God.

No they are not arguments against a being. Look at the definition of being in the debate. Being just means, more or less, something that exists. It doesn't mean that this thing that exists needs to be a deity, or a rational entity. All it needs to do is exist. Information exchange exists (is a being) and has been called God. It was called God long before it was called information exchange. I have every right to use the prior term of art, if I wish.

Of course, to the extent that this process takes place through us, it is rationally directed. That's where I distinguish between God and the godhead in the debate -- the rational expression of information is the so-called divine force at work, a product of intelligence resultant from the process (that I defined as the godhead) resulting in intelligence.

Again, that does not follow from anything you have said in this debate. You just jump freely back and force between different statements, seemingly believing that they follow logically from each other, but they never do.

I have posited that the process by which we receive information is a subset, rather than an alienated set, of the same processes that provide direction to all processes in nature. In other words, the rational mind is a part of nature, and should not be mistaken as distinct from it. To the extent that this process is experienced by rational minds, it is rational (as it is directed by rational thought processes). You can not argue that natural processes do not give rise to life without handing life over to the supernatural. Therefore, if you are an rationalist, you must concede that the aspects of life we like to hold apart from nature, such as the mind, are in fact products of, informed by, and a part of nature. It holds then that any thought that is a thought held by a thing that is of nature, being indistinct therefrom, must be of nature ... therefore, when you think, a small part of nature thinks. That is the self-reflective part of the natural information process of which I spoke.

"Information is being exchanged. Hence, people mistake this for God. Hence God exists. Hence it's not a divinity, but a Being. Hence and intelligence results from the process."

Nothing follows from anything else in your argumentation.

No, no ... people gave the process the name "God" -- no meaning holds weight outside of that which we give it ... in fact, some words have entirely changed meaning over time. At the time people called this information exchange process God, it was God. Over time the meaning has changed, of course, but this is irrelevant ... because I only needed to show that it was worshiped (past tense) as God, not that it still properly was.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 2:32:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 2:11:46 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Nope. I argued that God was a natural process.

Which is the same as arguing against the existence of God.

You are assuming that God must have some quality that I have never described. What quality is this, and why is it required under the definition used for the debate?

The quality of being a god or god-like. At a minimum is needs to have some sort of supernatural powers to be God.

No they are not arguments against a being.

Yes, they are. You are claiming that God is a natural process. Then God os not a god. Rain is a natural process. Sweat is a natural process. Gravity is a natural process. None of these are god.

Look at the definition of being in the debate. Being just means, more or less, something that exists.

Yes. And you argue against the existence of God, when you claim that God in fact only is a misunderstanding, a natural process being mistaken for a god. That is the same as saying that God does NOT exist.

Information exchange exists (is a being)

True.

and has been called God.

False.

It was called God long before it was called information exchange. I have every right to use the prior term of art, if I wish.

You are now claiming God exists because something that is called God is being worshiped. That still does not follow, and it reduces god from a supernatural being to the object being worshiped. But this is false. Nobody that worships a statue of Shiva claims that this statue *is* Shiva.

I have posited that the process by which we receive information is a subset, rather than an alienated set, of the same processes that provide direction to all processes in nature. In other words, the rational mind is a part of nature, and should not be mistaken as distinct from it.

Again, you presume the existence of God. There is no process that provides direction to all processes in nature.

You argument is:

1. God exists.
2. Information exchange exists.
3. People worship information exchange.
4. Therefore God is information exchange.
5. Hence God exists.

Only 2 is correct in that whole logic. Yes, and I understand you will now change your argument again, but it won't help. It's nonsense from start to finish.

To the extent that this process is experienced by rational minds

Which it isn't.

You can not argue that natural processes do not give rise to life without handing life over to the supernatural.

Please reformulate that sentence without having triple negatives, and while clarifying the sentence structure, because this sentence can mean several things, none of which makes any sense to me.

Therefore, if you are an rationalist, you must concede that the aspects of life we like to hold apart from nature, such as the mind, are in fact products of, informed by, and a part of nature.

I do agree that they are a part of nature. Who are "we"? *I* don't like to hold these apart form nature. What you like seems irrelevant.

It holds then that any thought that is a thought held by a thing that is of nature, being indistinct therefrom, must be of nature ... therefore, when you think, a small part of nature thinks. That is the self-reflective part of the natural information process of which I spoke.

Sure. More arguments against the existence of God, I see.

No, no ... people gave the process the name "God" -- no meaning holds weight outside of that which we give it ... in fact, some words have entirely changed meaning over time.

Yes. And now we speak modern English, not an imaginary stone age language where God means something different. If you are unsure of the meaning of the word "God" then look it up in a dictionary. Because this is getting silly.

At the time people called this information exchange process God, it was God. Over time the meaning has changed, of course, but this is irrelevant ... because I only needed to show that it was worshiped (past tense) as God, not that it still properly was.

All you showed was that people used to worship something that is not God, as if it was God. That is an argument *against* the existence of God.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 4:05:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 2:32:01 PM, regebro wrote:

Which is the same as arguing against the existence of God.

Only the Christian God, not God in reference to all of his qualities.

The quality of being a god or god-like. At a minimum is needs to have some sort of supernatural powers to be God.

No, God does not. God was generally defined and I was allowed to posit any God I wanted. My God is not supernatural. A supernatural being is only one kind of being. Mine is the other kind.

Yes, they are. You are claiming that God is a natural process. Then God os not a god. Rain is a natural process. Sweat is a natural process. Gravity is a natural process. None of these are god.

According to my description of the godhead, all of them are God.

Yes. And you argue against the existence of God, when you claim that God in fact only is a misunderstanding, a natural process being mistaken for a god. That is the same as saying that God does NOT exist.

Nope. I argue that before anyone ever used the set of words "sum total process of information exchange" they used the word God to describe the same phenomenon.

and has been called God.

False.

True. The word made/was/is God was repeated in two of my sources and the traits found in that same consideration are fundamentally similar to descriptions of the Tao ... if you reduce God to its most fundamental qualities in these faiths, God is the Word ... the process by which things are informed to act ... the sum total process of information exchange. At least, there is evidence for that position. My opponent did not provide any evidence against.

You are now claiming God exists because something that is called God is being worshiped. That still does not follow, and it reduces god from a supernatural being to the object being worshiped. But this is false. Nobody that worships a statue of Shiva claims that this statue *is* Shiva.

I never said anything about statues, especially of Shiva (a tripartite fragment of a trinary description of God based upon the triatic division of the functions of all processes into creative, preservative and destructive categories). I said that God was posited as being formed by, held with, and of the Word, which has as its definition a process for exchanging information.

Again, you presume the existence of God. There is no process that provides direction to all processes in nature.

The sum total of all information exchanges can be seen as the overall causative effect of all processes upon each other, but of necessity at least one motion must occur before any others can ... most likely the big bang.

You argument is:

1. God exists.
2. Information exchange exists.
3. People worship information exchange.
4. Therefore God is information exchange.
5. Hence God exists.

Only 2 is correct in that whole logic. Yes, and I understand you will now change your argument again, but it won't help. It's nonsense from start to finish.

I have not changed my argument throughout. You just continue to ascribe traits to God that do not need to be ascribed to God by definition because they actually are by practice. I am not arguing for religion, nor do I need to argue a religious interpretation of a God to win this debate.

To the extent that this process is experienced by rational minds

Which it isn't.

It is, right now.

You can not argue that natural processes do not give rise to life without handing life over to the supernatural.

Please reformulate that sentence without having triple negatives, and while clarifying the sentence structure, because this sentence can mean several things, none of which makes any sense to me.

Fine.
Simply put, if only natural things exist and if things of nature are a part of nature, then the process by which cognition forms is natural.

It holds then that any thought that is a thought held by a thing that is of nature, being indistinct therefrom, must be of nature ... therefore, when you think, a small part of nature thinks. That is the self-reflective part of the natural information process of which I spoke.

Sure. More arguments against the existence of God, I see.

No, for my definition of God ... which may be natural under the terms of the debate.

No, no ... people gave the process the name "God" -- no meaning holds weight outside of that which we give it ... in fact, some words have entirely changed meaning over time.

Yes. And now we speak modern English, not an imaginary stone age language where God means something different. If you are unsure of the meaning of the word "God" then look it up in a dictionary. Because this is getting silly.

My opponent did look it up in the dictionary. I suggest you go to Merriam Webster. Right Now. AND READ THE ARTICLE!

At the time people called this information exchange process God, it was God. Over time the meaning has changed, of course, but this is irrelevant ... because I only needed to show that it was worshiped (past tense) as God, not that it still properly was.

All you showed was that people used to worship something that is not God, as if it was God. That is an argument *against* the existence of God.

NO. READ THE DEFINITION OF GOD. http://www.merriam-webster.com... MY OPPONENT ONLY USED THE DEFINITION FOR THE CAPITALIZED VERSION OF GOD. I MET THAT DEFINITION!!!
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 11:40:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You are trying to prove that God exists, by claiming that anything you call God is God, and then pointing at some random thing and saying "It's God".

When pointed out that is has none of Gods qualities, including the fact that it is not a god, has no powers, no sentience, no morality. You just go "My god is not a god".

That's just ridiculous. I don't know if you are pulling my leg or if you genuinely has succeeded in pulling a wool of fancy words before your own eyes, but I think it's now completely clear what the problem is: You tried to prove God, by redefining God so God not longer is a God. Yet, you failed. Because the processes of which you talk are so diffuse, and you use such a convoluted language to talk about them, that it's not clear that they exist, even though they are wholly un-godlike.

Here is how your "proof" should have looked.

1. I am to prove that God exists.
2. I can choose my own definition of God.
3. I have a cat. I define God as being "my cat".
4. Here is a photo of me petting my cat, today. proving my cat exists.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Because this is exactly the type of proof you have been presenting here. I think the problem is that you genuinely believe that you by this inane joke-proof actually proved that God exist, when all you proved was that God was inadequately defined in the debate.

And that is *doubly* ridicolous, since God was defines as such in the debate:

"God-The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

Evidently not a cat.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 12:03:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/22/2009 11:40:53 PM, regebro wrote:
You are trying to prove that God exists, by claiming that anything you call God is God, and then pointing at some random thing and saying "It's God".

When pointed out that is has none of Gods qualities, including the fact that it is not a god, has no powers, no sentience, no morality. You just go "My god is not a god".

That's just ridiculous. I don't know if you are pulling my leg or if you genuinely has succeeded in pulling a wool of fancy words before your own eyes, but I think it's now completely clear what the problem is: You tried to prove God, by redefining God so God not longer is a God. Yet, you failed. Because the processes of which you talk are so diffuse, and you use such a convoluted language to talk about them, that it's not clear that they exist, even though they are wholly un-godlike.

Here is how your "proof" should have looked.

1. I am to prove that God exists.
2. I can choose my own definition of God.
3. I have a cat. I define God as being "my cat".
4. Here is a photo of me petting my cat, today. proving my cat exists.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Because this is exactly the type of proof you have been presenting here. I think the problem is that you genuinely believe that you by this inane joke-proof actually proved that God exist, when all you proved was that God was inadequately defined in the debate.

And that is *doubly* ridicolous, since God was defines as such in the debate:

"God-The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

Evidently not a cat.

Oh, regebro, you are like the anti-DATCMOTO ... an atheist who chooses to ignore everything for atheism ... but at the expense of discussion, which even DAT wouldn't do. You would liken the comparison to calling my cat God. That is actually fine. If all I had to do was that, I would win the debate. But I tried to make the debate something more for everyone's benefit. I tried to propose a rational reason for everything that could be described as God ... and your only response has been to throw insult after insult. In ordinary, everyday parlance, no I have not proven a spirit being formed of supernatural processes that controls everything ... but I offered a possibility of a natural phenomenon that qualified under the common descriptions of God ... and so would be God, in so far as there ever was one. You really want to hold onto the idea that God must be a deity that meets Christian theological values. If that is the only definition of God that you have, then you are not an atheist ... you are only an anti-Christian. To be an atheist, you have to set aside the belief in theism ... in short, you have to believe that there is no personal God or gods controlling things (i.e. no divine intelligence). It does not follow that you have to attack anything that helps to explain and justify the faith held by people over the ages ... it most certainly does not follow that you have to relegate a best term to the scrap heap of identifiers because we now understand its characteristics differently. We once thought that the heart was the seat of all emotion. We now know that the brain is. Is the heart any less a heart that it lacks what was once assumed in it? No. Is God any less God that God lacks the capacity we once believed within? No. Even should I fail to prove the mind of God, the corpus of what was called God remains ... and is the best explanation for any number of phenomena, because it necessarily covers all such phenomena.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 12:27:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 12:03:12 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Oh, regebro, you are like the anti-DATCMOTO ... an atheist who chooses to ignore everything for atheism

Not at all. You accepted a challenge to prove god exists, failed, and now try to say that you proved a god that isn't a god, because it wasn't defined well, which it was. You have totally argued yourself into a corner.

If all I had to do was that, I would win the debate.

Unfortunately, this is what you claim you did. However, it was not what you needed to do, as God was clearly defined as something very non-catlike.

The fact is that you are incorrect not only in your argumentation, but in your description of your argumentation too. You are in a argumentative corner, and instead of admitting failure, you try to argue yourself out, but that only makes the corner smaller.

I tried to propose a rational reason for everything that could be described as God

Possibly, but what you was to do was to prove Gods existence. Not to show that it once may have been rational to believe in God.

In ordinary, everyday parlance, no I have not proven a spirit being formed of supernatural processes that controls everything

Well, to do that is the challenge you accepted. You failed. When you failed, you are now using various convoluted post-rationalizations to turn that failure into a win in your mind. That you can do, of course, but don't think that it will turn it into a win in anybody else's mind.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 12:46:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 12:27:33 AM, regebro wrote:

Not at all. You accepted a challenge to prove god exists, failed, and now try to say that you proved a god that isn't a god, because it wasn't defined well, which it was. You have totally argued yourself into a corner.

No, I accepted a challenge to prove God (capital G) exists, and, whadda ya know, God was even defined, because there are many theistic beliefs, and for one definition to cover them, it needed to be general. Then, of course, I discussed general characteristics of God across multiple faiths, to meet the resolution ... and tied them to a single 'being' proving the existence thereof.

Unfortunately, this is what you claim you did. However, it was not what you needed to do, as God was clearly defined as something very non-catlike.

No, it is not. As you said yourself, God is very non-catlike. God could not be a living organism subject to natural processes ... he needed to be BIGGER than that ... and a bigger being with the necessary traits I have shown to exist, just not to exist with the particular qualifiers of each and every religion.

The fact is that you are incorrect not only in your argumentation, but in your description of your argumentation too. You are in a argumentative corner, and instead of admitting failure, you try to argue yourself out, but that only makes the corner smaller.

No, it doesn't, as evidence by the fact that my answers keep getting expansive and your responses are continually more limited.

Possibly, but what you was to do was to prove Gods existence. Not to show that it once may have been rational to believe in God.

I just proved a phenomenon meeting all the qualities of God save those unique to modern Christianity. Once again, you can not argue that only a supernatural God is a 'real' God because that is not atheism ... that is some special unrealistic belief that those you oppose will always be religiously programmed automatons, which most individuals are not. God has been used by the likes of Einstein and Spinoza to describe natural phenomena mistaken as supernatural phenomena ... I am only original in spelling this out distinctly. http://www.spaceandmotion.com...

Well, to do that is the challenge you accepted. You failed. When you failed, you are now using various convoluted post-rationalizations to turn that failure into a win in your mind. That you can do, of course, but don't think that it will turn it into a win in anybody else's mind.

No, it is not. I accepted the challenge to prove a God by a limited definition stated by my opponent. If it is not the one you were expecting, I am sorry that your expectations were not met.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 1:12:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 12:46:44 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
No, I accepted a challenge to prove God (capital G) exists, and, whadda ya know, God was even defined, because there are many theistic beliefs, and for one definition to cover them, it needed to be general. Then, of course

Yes.

I discussed general characteristics of God across multiple faiths, to meet the resolution ... and tied them to a single 'being' proving the existence thereof.

You did no such thing.

No, it is not. As you said yourself, God is very non-catlike. God could not be a living organism subject to natural processes ...

Correct. Yet, this is the type of God you yourself has claimed to "prove" (although of course you failed wit that too).

No, it doesn't, as evidence by the fact that my answers keep getting expansive and your responses are continually more limited.

Ha! Do you really believe that you writing long answers, while I try to focus in on the important and relevant, is proof that *you* are right?

I just proved a phenomenon meeting all the qualities of God save those unique to modern Christianity.

No, you didn't. Your proof, by your own admittance, is for a god that has none of the qualities of god. It is in fact not a god but a natural phenomenon, a living thing subject to natural processes.

Once again, you can not argue that only a supernatural God is a 'real' God

Yes, I can. Because of it is not supernatural, it subject to natural processes. Which you, yourself, admits is NOT a god.

because that is not atheism

That is exactly what it is. If you believe there is nothing supernatural at all, you are also an atheist.

No, it is not. I accepted the challenge to prove a God by a limited definition stated by my opponent.

And you did not. You didn't even try. You tried (and failed) to prove a god that isn't a god, but a being subject to natural processes. Like a cat.
So prove me wrong, then.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 1:34:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 1:12:36 AM, regebro wrote:

Yes.

I discussed general characteristics of God across multiple faiths, to meet the resolution ... and tied them to a single 'being' proving the existence thereof.

You did no such thing.

Yes, I did. Read my sources. God as a concept encompassing the Word is linked back logically to the expression of meaning. I quote more than the Bible in that debate.

No, it is not. As you said yourself, God is very non-catlike. God could not be a living organism subject to natural processes ...

Correct. Yet, this is the type of God you yourself has claimed to "prove" (although of course you failed wit that too).

No. An organism is limited to one individual organic mass animate with information. I never claimed that God was this. This is a much lesser than that which I described as God.

No, it doesn't, as evidence by the fact that my answers keep getting expansive and your responses are continually more limited.

Ha! Do you really believe that you writing long answers, while I try to focus in on the important and relevant, is proof that *you* are right?

So long as they are not logically contradicted, yes. It is like having a child ask you why constantly until you finally satiate his or her thirst for understanding. You aren't wrong, you just need to keep proving why you are right.

I just proved a phenomenon meeting all the qualities of God save those unique to modern Christianity.

No, you didn't. Your proof, by your own admittance, is for a god that has none of the qualities of god. It is in fact not a god but a natural phenomenon, a living thing subject to natural processes.

No. FFS,* read the definition and the source I just supplied you with. I'm arguing for God as understood by Einstein! It counts! READ!

Once again, you can not argue that only a supernatural God is a 'real' God

Yes, I can. Because of it is not supernatural, it subject to natural processes. Which you, yourself, admits is NOT a god.

No. Just no. I don't know what to do with this. Could someone from the atheist/agnostic side of things back me up in this? I don't want to have to explain this all day, every day, for the next twenty years.

because that is not atheism

That is exactly what it is. If you believe there is nothing supernatural at all, you are also an atheist.

No, I am a rationalist. I am an agnostic because I CAN NOT PROVE THAT THE PROCESS ASSUMED TO BE GOD HAS AN INTELLIGENCE OR NOT!! An atheist disavows proof of any notion of a theistic god at best (an agnostic atheist) ... a hardline dogmatic atheist disavows, proof or otherwise, any theistic god at best ... you disapprove of the term 'God' because you associate it automatically with a multitude of things it need not be associated with. I don't know what that is.

No, it is not. I accepted the challenge to prove a God by a limited definition stated by my opponent.

And you did not. You didn't even try. You tried (and failed) to prove a god that isn't a god, but a being subject to natural processes. Like a cat.

See above. I'm done. Anyone who wants to explain my rationale can feel free to do so below. I have better things to do than to play word games all day long.

* For Felix's Sake, Felix being the name of the cat you keep referring to as that which is as good as God.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 1:45:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
By way of addendum, the best definition of atheism is simply that which is not theistic, i.e. that which holds no belief in a personal god/deity. I personally have some belief, admittedly unprovable though possibly rational, in the intelligence end of the spectrum, which separates me out from atheism (because God gets a personality of sorts) ... but I didn't argue for it in the debate. I only argued what I knew I could rationally argue for -- the natural process called God.

So, no, you assume much in the debate and in me, and especially in that you assume that what I debate I must believe to the extent I debate it.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 2:44:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 1:34:06 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
I discussed general characteristics of God across multiple faiths, to meet the resolution ... and tied them to a single 'being' proving the existence thereof.

You did no such thing.

Yes, I did. Read my sources. God as a concept encompassing the Word is linked back logically to the expression of meaning. I quote more than the Bible in that debate.

Doesn't help. It's the "proving the existence thereof" part that is missing, still. You simply have not doe that, in fact you haven't even tried.

At 8/21/2009 6:44:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I searched your opening argument, but I couldn't find your argument for why God exists.

At 8/21/2009 7:53:27 PM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
Assuming that you are correct to prove you are correct.

How original.

At 8/22/2009 6:50:32 AM, Floid wrote:
I too did not see any arguments for why God exists. You quote a Bible verse that says God exists and discuss a lot of traits that you think God has, but neither of those are arguments for the existence of God.

And with me, that's four people that simply do not see any argument that God exists in your argumentation. You didn't even try.

You have *later* tried to claim that God exists, by redefining God as something that is not a god, which in itself is failure. You have not even tried to prove God, as defined.

No, it is not. As you said yourself, God is very non-catlike. God could not be a living organism subject to natural processes ...

Correct. Yet, this is the type of God you yourself has claimed to "prove" (although of course you failed wit that too).

No. An organism is limited to one individual organic mass animate with information.

Yes, and so it could be. The whole universe could be one organism as far as we know. Limiting the usage of the word "organism" to "earthly animal" is completely arbitrary.

Ha! Do you really believe that you writing long answers, while I try to focus in on the important and relevant, is proof that *you* are right?

So long as they are not logically contradicted, yes.

Well, they are. You contradict yourself all the time. You also talk in length about things that are not relevant. But mostly about things that are slightly relevant. I don't see a point in answering any tangent you come up with, so I focus on the core.

I just proved a phenomenon meeting all the qualities of God save those unique to modern Christianity.

No, you didn't. Your proof, by your own admittance, is for a god that has none of the qualities of god. It is in fact not a god but a natural phenomenon, a living thing subject to natural processes.

No. FFS,* read the definition and the source I just supplied you with. I'm arguing for God as understood by Einstein! It counts! READ!

No, it doesn't count. Spinozas God is not a god. It has no personality, it does not rule, there is nothing to pray to or worship. Spinozas god *is* atheism. But Atheism in a time where atheism was illegal or inconceivable. Spinozas God is nature with another name. Again: Renaming non-god things "God" does not make it a god.

In any case, you have not argued for this. You have argued for that God is a PART of nature. Not all of nature, but a subset of it. Like, for example, a cat. There is no relevant philosophical difference between what you have argued for, and a cat.

And, by your own admittance, this is not a god.

Yes, I can. Because of it is not supernatural, it subject to natural processes. Which you, yourself, admits is NOT a god.

No. Just no. I don't know what to do with this.

You can't do anything. A cat does not become a God just because you say so. Natural occurrences are not gods. A god, per definition, *must* be supernatural or have supernatural powers. Full stop.

Could someone from the atheist/agnostic side of things back me up in this? I don't want to have to explain this all day, every day, for the next twenty years.

You will have to explain it, until the day you realize that you are wrong.
An awe of the universe, which is what Einstein has, is not a god.

because that is not atheism

That is exactly what it is. If you believe there is nothing supernatural at all, you are also an atheist.

No, I am a rationalist. I am an agnostic because I CAN NOT PROVE THAT THE PROCESS ASSUMED TO BE GOD HAS AN INTELLIGENCE OR NOT!! An atheist disavows proof of any notion of a theistic god at best (an agnostic atheist) ... a hardline dogmatic atheist disavows, proof or otherwise, any theistic god at best ... you disapprove of the term 'God' because you associate it automatically with a multitude of things it need not be associated with. I don't know what that is.

No, you are just confused. The God you argue for is not a god. It is in the case of Einstein, a feeling of awe. It is in the case of your "Information exchange", just a natural phenomenon which you decide to call "God" for no apparent reason.

You obviously have a strong need for being spiritual, and at the same time you have a strong need for the rational, and these feeling are contradictory. How you handle them is up to you, but by saying "I believe that a non-existent God exists" then you sure won't convince anybody else, so you might just give up the convincing.

No, it is not. I accepted the challenge to prove a God by a limited definition stated by my opponent.

And you did not. You didn't even try. You tried (and failed) to prove a god that isn't a god, but a being subject to natural processes. Like a cat.

See above. I'm done. Anyone who wants to explain my rationale can feel free to do so below. I have better things to do than to play word games all day long.

So stop it. Because word games is all you have done from start to finish here, when you try to define God and not being a God, and when you try to redefine natural processes as God even though they have none of the qualities of God.

* For Felix's Sake, Felix being the name of the cat you keep referring to as that which is as good as God.

No, he *is* God. According to you. Which is as nonsensical as when DATCMOMOMOM claims dog and god is the same thing.

Summary:

You accepted the challenge to prove the existance of "God-The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe".

This you did not even attempt to do. Instead you attempted to redefine God to something that is wholly unlike a god, and claim that this existed. You failed even in this.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2009 6:50:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 1:45:34 AM, Lexicaholic wrote:
By way of addendum, the best definition of atheism is simply that which is not theistic, i.e. that which holds no belief in a personal god/deity.

Which means that the Einsteinian/Spinozan God is a form of atheism, as it has no belief in a personal god/deity.

QED.
So prove me wrong, then.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 10:00:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/23/2009 2:44:15 AM, regebro wrote:
Which is as nonsensical as when DATCMOMOMOM claims dog and god is the same thing.

And when, pray tell, did THAT occur?
The Cross.. the Cross.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 2:48:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 10:00:38 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/23/2009 2:44:15 AM, regebro wrote:
Which is as nonsensical as when DATCMOMOMOM claims dog and god is the same thing.

And when, pray tell, did THAT occur?

When you claimed words are defined by which letters do not occur in them. Hence, dog and god is the same word. Hence, God is a dog.

Just one of your brilliant proofs against God.
So prove me wrong, then.