but then i have to oil up my mental wrestling muscles to keep from getting caught in his [strike]language-headlock[/strike]
But it is simultaneously oscillating towards being in that headlock, you see
what do you call it when you play a linguistic trick on an entire field of academics
to "farm a con"
har har har
but, you see, by violating the violent heirarchy of law, the con, by establishing the law abiding citizen, shows the very citizens need for the con to necessitate the law. The con is not he who violates the ever present law, but the always-already conning around whom the law circulates.
I can bring this bullshit all day
there should be like a Derrida-staring contest, where people keep out-bsing eachother until the first one can no longer stand the affront to their dignity
Fun, certainly, must have an external referent which fulfills the reflected equilibrium of some inner-sense of enjoyment.
What do you mean by 'external', though? Does that exclude fun through remembering things that happened, or though mentally combining existing concepts to create something new?
but then i have to oil up my mental wrestling muscles to keep from getting caught in his [strike]language-headlock[/strike]
But it is simultaneously oscillating towards being in that headlock, you see
what do you call it when you play a linguistic trick on an entire field of academics
to "farm a con"
har har har
but, you see, by violating the violent heirarchy of law, the con, by establishing the law abiding citizen, shows the very citizens need for the con to necessitate the law. The con is not he who violates the ever present law, but the always-already conning around whom the law circulates.
I can bring this bullshit all day
there should be like a Derrida-staring contest, where people keep out-bsing eachother until the first one can no longer stand the affront to their dignity
that was pretty hot
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
that either outright atheism or theism is based on faith?
why? because being has the same definition as a weakly defined God, because things exist?
doesn't seem to require faith to believe things exist.
If Atheism is a rejection of bearded god on a throne, then that makes me an atheist.
However, if Atheism is a rejection of metaphysical beings, non-physical ordering of universe, I think atheism has some 'splainin' to do.
that either outright atheism or theism is based on faith?
why? because being has the same definition as a weakly defined God, because things exist?
doesn't seem to require faith to believe things exist.
If Atheism is a rejection of bearded god on a throne, then that makes me an atheist.
However, if Atheism is a rejection of metaphysical beings, non-physical ordering of universe, I think atheism has some 'splainin' to do.
atheism is a rejection of theism, as in, religions. as in, religions with a personal, active god. atheists don't really care what you call the universe, or the unknown principles that underlie it, as long as you don't suggest they are personal or mindful and make them into gods (which is an unjustified action).
atheism is a rejection of theism, as in, religions. as in, religions with a personal, active god. atheists don't really care what you call the universe, or the unknown principles that underlie it, as long as you don't suggest they are personal or mindful and make them into gods (which is an unjustified action).
Modern atheism is a lack of belief in a specific class of beings.
There are numerous deity-free religions full of magic. They are atheist religions.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
that either outright atheism or theism is based on faith?
why? because being has the same definition as a weakly defined God, because things exist?
doesn't seem to require faith to believe things exist.
If Atheism is a rejection of bearded god on a throne, then that makes me an atheist.
However, if Atheism is a rejection of metaphysical beings, non-physical ordering of universe, I think atheism has some 'splainin' to do.
atheism is a rejection of theism, as in, religions. as in, religions with a personal, active god. atheists don't really care what you call the universe, or the unknown principles that underlie it, as long as you don't suggest they are personal or mindful and make them into gods (which is an unjustified action).
But what of people who have religious experiences? As a [strike]being[/strike] which is not a stable a identity, Being functions as a pharmakon. Presencing/Absencing, it shows itself in non-being and absolute presence. I feel that a religious experience, a personal communion of being-beholden to Being, could create such an experience. If that directs a person towards Being, such that they are grateful for being alive, then I do not see how such a religion can be authentic and justified.
that either outright atheism or theism is based on faith?
why? because being has the same definition as a weakly defined God, because things exist?
doesn't seem to require faith to believe things exist.
If Atheism is a rejection of bearded god on a throne, then that makes me an atheist.
However, if Atheism is a rejection of metaphysical beings, non-physical ordering of universe, I think atheism has some 'splainin' to do.
atheism is a rejection of theism, as in, religions. as in, religions with a personal, active god. atheists don't really care what you call the universe, or the unknown principles that underlie it, as long as you don't suggest they are personal or mindful and make them into gods (which is an unjustified action).
But what of people who have religious experiences? As a [strike]being[/strike] which is not a stable a identity, Being functions as a pharmakon. Presencing/Absencing, it shows itself in non-being and absolute presence. I feel that a religious experience, a personal communion of being-beholden to Being, could create such an experience. If that directs a person towards Being, such that they are grateful for being alive, then I do not see how such a religion can be authentic and justified.
and what if religious experiences are simply erroneous interpretations of some other kind of feeling?
or, let's indulge the mysticism inherent in "communing with being" and other fuzzy concepts that remind me of laborious, stretching attempts to unify a philosophy with a personal vendetta (like in the Hyperion series where Simmons tries to unify his techno-paradise with the idea that love is the fundamental force of the universe). communing with a mindless force, or experiencing Being, or whatever you want to call it - why is this suddenly a "religious" experience? if there is no God in a traditional personal sense, if there is only the universe, having some kind of mystical experience is not "religious," it's simply feelin' good. and i don't see why it's any different from any other kind of feelin' good.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
that either outright atheism or theism is based on faith?
why? because being has the same definition as a weakly defined God, because things exist?
doesn't seem to require faith to believe things exist.
If Atheism is a rejection of bearded god on a throne, then that makes me an atheist.
However, if Atheism is a rejection of metaphysical beings, non-physical ordering of universe, I think atheism has some 'splainin' to do.
atheism is a rejection of theism, as in, religions. as in, religions with a personal, active god. atheists don't really care what you call the universe, or the unknown principles that underlie it, as long as you don't suggest they are personal or mindful and make them into gods (which is an unjustified action).
But what of people who have religious experiences? As a [strike]being[/strike] which is not a stable a identity, Being functions as a pharmakon. Presencing/Absencing, it shows itself in non-being and absolute presence. I feel that a religious experience, a personal communion of being-beholden to Being, could create such an experience. If that directs a person towards Being, such that they are grateful for being alive, then I do not see how such a religion can be authentic and justified.
and what if religious experiences are simply erroneous interpretations of some other kind of feeling?
or, let's indulge the mysticism inherent in "communing with being" and other fuzzy concepts that remind me of laborious, stretching attempts to unify a philosophy with a personal vendetta (like in the Hyperion series where Simmons tries to unify his techno-paradise with the idea that love is the fundamental force of the universe). communing with a mindless force, or experiencing Being, or whatever you want to call it - why is this suddenly a "religious" experience? if there is no God in a traditional personal sense, if there is only the universe, having some kind of mystical experience is not "religious," it's simply feelin' good. and i don't see why it's any different from any other kind of feelin' good.
I would argue that you're equivocating of "the universe" (which I would argue is more a set than a singular, indivisibule, substantial whole) and Being ignores the direct connection that all beings have to Being. The universe a set, beings are part of it. Being sustains beings. I would argue that such a sustaining of beings is grounds for worship, perhaps.
I am not arguing that this is the set foundation of religious feeling. What I am arguing is that to account for Being presents atheists with a structural problem for systematic rejection of a possibility of belief.
there is never grounds for worship. the very concept is an affront to human dignity.
i for one as an atheist do not reject the possibility of Being existing, nor do I even reject the possibility out of hand of Being having some kind of incomprehensible "life" or "mind," although I do find it unlikely and see absolutely no reason to believe it. whether these exist or not doesn't even matter to me. what i do reject is every single god that has ever been posited with a set of qualities or actions, every single god that has been defined or identified as a personal active one that is in any way directly involved in the universe.
there is never grounds for worship. the very concept is an affront to human dignity.
i for one as an atheist do not reject the possibility of Being existing, nor do I even reject the possibility out of hand of Being having some kind of incomprehensible "life" or "mind," although I do find it unlikely and see absolutely no reason to believe it. whether these exist or not doesn't even matter to me. what i do reject is every single god that has ever been posited with a set of qualities or actions, every single god that has been defined or identified as a personal active one that is in any way directly involved in the universe.
see bringing in "human dignity" is waaaaaay out of left field and requires a whole lot of enlightenment era moves which I am fully ready do deconstruct
It seems that we are at a deadlock, however, when it comes to the meaning of Being. In its sustaining your being and the being of other beings, you do not see it as effecting you. I see it as the primary effect on you. I'm not quite sure how to remobilize the discourse there.
Thus making this thread a convoluted "you can't prove god(1) doesn't exist!"
1. what "god" we're actually talking about being left oddly vague
Not really. More that I feel atheists have to account for a structure which fulfills all of the traditional definitions of God.
but it doesn't fulfill all the traditional definitions of God, unless you twist the meaning of that definition beyond recognition and ignore the fact that there's no reason to believe Being is mindful in any sense of the term.
Thus making this thread a convoluted "you can't prove god(1) doesn't exist!"
1. what "god" we're actually talking about being left oddly vague
Not really. More that I feel atheists have to account for a structure which fulfills all of the traditional definitions of God.
but it doesn't fulfill all the traditional definitions of God, unless you twist the meaning of that definition beyond recognition and ignore the fact that there's no reason to believe Being is mindful in any sense of the term.
I feel that
1) What I have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world
2) I feel that "being mindful" is a human anthropomophism that gives God an attribute that it could never have.
Thus making this thread a convoluted "you can't prove god(1) doesn't exist!"
1. what "god" we're actually talking about being left oddly vague
Not really. More that I feel atheists have to account for a structure which fulfills all of the traditional definitions of God.
but it doesn't fulfill all the traditional definitions of God, unless you twist the meaning of that definition beyond recognition and ignore the fact that there's no reason to believe Being is mindful in any sense of the term.
I feel that
1) What I have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world
2) I feel that "being mindful" is a human anthropomophism that gives God an attribute that it could never have.
I feel that
1) the way in which you delineate them is a terrible stretch. to "present" beings is not potence; it is not an action; there is no causation. it is prior to any action, and thus prior to any form of power. Being has no power. to be "omniscient" is nonsensical when there is no mind to have any knowledge. to be "omnipresent" is paradoxical if Being "presences" things.
one the one hand you say that Being is ungraspable, that it veils itself, and then you turn around and assign it attributes that match the very much graspable, very clearly delineated gods of various major religions - gods that are clearly beings, not Being, and which have very clear attributes.
the Being you speak of cannot match any god in any extant religion; to suggest it does casts enormous doubt on the capacity of any religious text or author to express anything effectively or properly, even if they were actually divinely inspired by a godlike Being, since they obviously have it so spectacularly wrong. why trust anything they say or claim at that point?
2) I feel that being mindful is exactly as necessary to the definition of God as any of the omnis, and they are all anthropomorphized qualities, because to call this Being "God" is itself an anthropomorphizing act, as is all religion. Religion is the anthropomorphization of the universe, to prevent it from being absurd.
But what of people who have religious experiences?
Those people are responding to a byproduct of their brain activity. Ever heard of a runners high? It's similar. You can work yourself into another state of mind through various forms of meditation as well. Tribal dancers can work themselves into a religious frenzy through movement, coupled with auditory and visual stimulation. It's just a natural way of getting high on brain chemicals. Like any organ the brain can be imperfect and might affect some people without the usual triggers.
even if there is such a thing i see no problem in accounting for it
it wouldn't particularly concern me if it "existed"
Then on what grounds are you an atheist? If Being does exist, it fulfills the basic definitions of God.
No, Podly. An existent universe is not the same thing as a god by any useful definition of the word "god."
If you want to define the universe as God and become a pantheist, whatever, I honestly don't give a shit. I don't think it's a useful definition of "god," but that's just semantics—just like this tiresome argument about how atheists are not really atheists.
It's when you try to go from there to gods the Bible or the Quran or other religious texts that we start to have big problems. Are you arguing for the Christian god, Podly? Because that God is imaginary and fictional. He exists only in the sense that imaginary and fictional characters exist. The nature and extent of imaginary and fictional characters' existence is another debate entirely.
Yeah, Podly, the thing I think you're not getting is that if the world had started by defining God in the way you've done here - without the necessary ingredients of consciousness and an interest in our well-being - then human beings would never have been even remotely interested in him, because they would've decided, correctly, that this "God" has no relevance to their lives. This is why every religion that includes a God includes one who makes certain promises to people and asks them to live a certain way. If God doesn't do that, if he doesn't give people the comfort of believing that someone who understands them is in control, if he doesn't provide some kind of guidance and reinforcement in their day-to-day lives, then they have no reason to care about him. People turn to God because they want to feel that the universe has humanity, that it's not indifferent to them. So if you want to speak to issues of theism and atheism in a way that actually matters to people, you have to define God in terms of what people want of him, and not purely as an abstraction as you're trying to do. That's why I'm dubious of your claim that you've boiled God down to his essential defintion; you've removed the only things that ever made people care about him.
there is never grounds for worship. the very concept is an affront to human dignity.
i for one as an atheist do not reject the possibility of Being existing, nor do I even reject the possibility out of hand of Being having some kind of incomprehensible "life" or "mind," although I do find it unlikely and see absolutely no reason to believe it. whether these exist or not doesn't even matter to me. what i do reject is every single god that has ever been posited with a set of qualities or actions, every single god that has been defined or identified as a personal active one that is in any way directly involved in the universe.
Limed for the first spark of truth to have emerged from 29 pages of nonsense.
there is never grounds for worship. the very concept is an affront to human dignity.
i for one as an atheist do not reject the possibility of Being existing, nor do I even reject the possibility out of hand of Being having some kind of incomprehensible "life" or "mind," although I do find it unlikely and see absolutely no reason to believe it. whether these exist or not doesn't even matter to me. what i do reject is every single god that has ever been posited with a set of qualities or actions, every single god that has been defined or identified as a personal active one that is in any way directly involved in the universe.
see bringing in "human dignity" is waaaaaay out of left field and requires a whole lot of enlightenment era moves which I am fully ready do deconstruct
It seems that we are at a deadlock, however, when it comes to the meaning of Being. In its sustaining your being and the being of other beings, you do not see it as effecting you. I see it as the primary effect on you. I'm not quite sure how to remobilize the discourse there.
If there is an effect by Being on a person or any other physical object should it be possible to measure that effect? Not nescessarily directly with human senses, humans are blind stupid to most of the universe as it is, but given the proper set of tools can this effect be measured?
Thus making this thread a convoluted "you can't prove god(1) doesn't exist!"
1. what "god" we're actually talking about being left oddly vague
Not really. More that I feel atheists have to account for a structure which fulfills all of the traditional definitions of God.
but it doesn't fulfill all the traditional definitions of God, unless you twist the meaning of that definition beyond recognition and ignore the fact that there's no reason to believe Being is mindful in any sense of the term.
I feel that
1) What I have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world
2) I feel that "being mindful" is a human anthropomophism that gives God an attribute that it could never have.
I feel like I'm being ignored. What about religions that describe morality as a fundamental element of God? Christian theologists have been saying this for centuries. You can't remove one thing that is a supposed fundamental element of God, and then say that the rest matches your description, because you've just removed something that was vital to the description to begin with. Thus, I would think point number 1 has to be false.
BloodySloth on
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Podly, nobody seems to agree that what you have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world.
Even if we did, that's a silly way to think about it. If no religion accepts your criteria as sufficient, then the fact that all of them accept your criteria as necessary in no way indicates that your criteria is sufficient.
Podly, nobody seems to agree that what you have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world.
Even if we did, that's a silly way to think about it. If no religion accepts your criteria as sufficient, then the fact that all of them accept your criteria as necessary in no way indicates that your criteria is sufficient.
Podly, nobody seems to agree that what you have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world.
Even if we did, that's a silly way to think about it. If no religion accepts your criteria as sufficient, then the fact that all of them accept your criteria as necessary in no way indicates that your criteria is sufficient.
I'm not even sure the ideas reperesented by "Being" are truely nescessary. Actually, I know for a fact they are not in a number of real, historical religions but even in modern Christianity I don't think they are.
By which I mean, suppose you asked a self-identified Christian which sounds more like their God:
1) Jesus of Nazerith, who died for their sins and allows for human salvation.
2) An omnipresent, nameless, inhuman Being which sustains all things which exist.
Edit: And more to the point, what if you asked them if you still had all the Jesus and Salvation but got rid of the "Being" would it still be their God?
I'm not even sure the ideas reperesented by "Being" are truely nescessary. Actually, I know for a fact they are not in a number of real, historical religions but even in modern Christianity I don't think they are.
By which I mean, suppose you asked a self-identified Christian which sounds more like their God:
1) Jesus of Nazerith, who died for their sins and allows for human salvation.
2) An omnipresent, nameless, inhuman Being which sustains all things which exist.
Edit: And more to the point, what if you asked them if you still had all the Jesus and Salvation but got rid of the "Being" would it still be their God?
If they're a certain breed of evangelical they might even say that #2 sounds a lot like that Satanic "Force" from that there Star Wars hogwash.
Yeah, I've always been doubtful that the people who believe in God really require him to fit all the various philosophical qualifications, like omnipresence. Christians might say they believe that God's love is everywhere, but they don't really need God's love to be on the planet Neptune, or in the Andromeda galaxy, or a million years from now. They just need it to be there today, right now, for them and the people they care for. It's far more important that God is locally present than omnipresent.
darthmix on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
No, Podly. An existent universe is not the same thing as a god by any useful definition of the word "god."
You're equivocating the universe with Being is a failure of identification. As I've said before, "Universe" is not reducible or synonymous to "Being." A universe is a set of things. Being is the Being of that set. You are also necessarily including all possible things, which doesn't seem like something you want to do, because even possible things have Being.
It's when you try to go from there to gods the Bible or the Quran or other religious texts that we start to have big problems. Are you arguing for the Christian god, Podly? Because that God is imaginary and fictional. He exists only in the sense that imaginary and fictional characters exist. The nature and extent of imaginary and fictional characters' existence is another debate entirely.
Luckily for me, as an existentialist, it doesn't matter if they existed or not, because I am free to reapporpiate my past!
Posts
har har har
but, you see, by violating the violent heirarchy of law, the con, by establishing the law abiding citizen, shows the very citizens need for the con to necessitate the law. The con is not he who violates the ever present law, but the always-already conning around whom the law circulates.
I can bring this bullshit all day
there should be like a Derrida-staring contest, where people keep out-bsing eachother until the first one can no longer stand the affront to their dignity
oh come now
I'll be the first to admit that there is a great deal of unsubstantiated claims in continental philosophy
but you could paint a similarly funny caricature about analytic philosophy
or do you just not like fun, Mr. Mister?
do you just not like fun?
But what do you mean by fun?
Let's do a conceptual analysis.
Fun, certainly, must have an external referent which fulfills the reflected equilibrium of some inner-sense of enjoyment.
What do you mean by 'external', though? Does that exclude fun through remembering things that happened, or though mentally combining existing concepts to create something new?
that was pretty hot
I would prefer if you said the same thing, but in a more dry and irrelevant way.
Let's use symbolic logic and number our sentences.
hahaha
the last part is so true
I remember the first analytic paper I read was Quine's ostension and somthing and I was like "wait, why the hell isn't he actually writing an essay?"
:P
ah, youth
edit*
(1) ∀x(fx), where X is youth, and (f) is will induce one to say Ahhh whenever thinking of X
that either outright atheism or theism is based on faith?
why? because being has the same definition as a weakly defined God, because things exist?
doesn't seem to require faith to believe things exist.
If Atheism is a rejection of bearded god on a throne, then that makes me an atheist.
However, if Atheism is a rejection of metaphysical beings, non-physical ordering of universe, I think atheism has some 'splainin' to do.
atheism is a rejection of theism, as in, religions. as in, religions with a personal, active god. atheists don't really care what you call the universe, or the unknown principles that underlie it, as long as you don't suggest they are personal or mindful and make them into gods (which is an unjustified action).
Modern atheism is a lack of belief in a specific class of beings.
There are numerous deity-free religions full of magic. They are atheist religions.
But what of people who have religious experiences? As a [strike]being[/strike] which is not a stable a identity, Being functions as a pharmakon. Presencing/Absencing, it shows itself in non-being and absolute presence. I feel that a religious experience, a personal communion of being-beholden to Being, could create such an experience. If that directs a person towards Being, such that they are grateful for being alive, then I do not see how such a religion can be authentic and justified.
and what if religious experiences are simply erroneous interpretations of some other kind of feeling?
or, let's indulge the mysticism inherent in "communing with being" and other fuzzy concepts that remind me of laborious, stretching attempts to unify a philosophy with a personal vendetta (like in the Hyperion series where Simmons tries to unify his techno-paradise with the idea that love is the fundamental force of the universe). communing with a mindless force, or experiencing Being, or whatever you want to call it - why is this suddenly a "religious" experience? if there is no God in a traditional personal sense, if there is only the universe, having some kind of mystical experience is not "religious," it's simply feelin' good. and i don't see why it's any different from any other kind of feelin' good.
I would argue that you're equivocating of "the universe" (which I would argue is more a set than a singular, indivisibule, substantial whole) and Being ignores the direct connection that all beings have to Being. The universe a set, beings are part of it. Being sustains beings. I would argue that such a sustaining of beings is grounds for worship, perhaps.
I am not arguing that this is the set foundation of religious feeling. What I am arguing is that to account for Being presents atheists with a structural problem for systematic rejection of a possibility of belief.
i for one as an atheist do not reject the possibility of Being existing, nor do I even reject the possibility out of hand of Being having some kind of incomprehensible "life" or "mind," although I do find it unlikely and see absolutely no reason to believe it. whether these exist or not doesn't even matter to me. what i do reject is every single god that has ever been posited with a set of qualities or actions, every single god that has been defined or identified as a personal active one that is in any way directly involved in the universe.
1. what "god" we're actually talking about being left oddly vague
see bringing in "human dignity" is waaaaaay out of left field and requires a whole lot of enlightenment era moves which I am fully ready do deconstruct
It seems that we are at a deadlock, however, when it comes to the meaning of Being. In its sustaining your being and the being of other beings, you do not see it as effecting you. I see it as the primary effect on you. I'm not quite sure how to remobilize the discourse there.
Not really. More that I feel atheists have to account for a structure which fulfills all of the traditional definitions of God.
but it doesn't fulfill all the traditional definitions of God, unless you twist the meaning of that definition beyond recognition and ignore the fact that there's no reason to believe Being is mindful in any sense of the term.
I feel that
1) What I have delineated as the fundamental constitution of God are the essential traits of the divine Being of all major religions in the world
2) I feel that "being mindful" is a human anthropomophism that gives God an attribute that it could never have.
I feel that
1) the way in which you delineate them is a terrible stretch. to "present" beings is not potence; it is not an action; there is no causation. it is prior to any action, and thus prior to any form of power. Being has no power. to be "omniscient" is nonsensical when there is no mind to have any knowledge. to be "omnipresent" is paradoxical if Being "presences" things.
one the one hand you say that Being is ungraspable, that it veils itself, and then you turn around and assign it attributes that match the very much graspable, very clearly delineated gods of various major religions - gods that are clearly beings, not Being, and which have very clear attributes.
the Being you speak of cannot match any god in any extant religion; to suggest it does casts enormous doubt on the capacity of any religious text or author to express anything effectively or properly, even if they were actually divinely inspired by a godlike Being, since they obviously have it so spectacularly wrong. why trust anything they say or claim at that point?
2) I feel that being mindful is exactly as necessary to the definition of God as any of the omnis, and they are all anthropomorphized qualities, because to call this Being "God" is itself an anthropomorphizing act, as is all religion. Religion is the anthropomorphization of the universe, to prevent it from being absurd.
Those people are responding to a byproduct of their brain activity. Ever heard of a runners high? It's similar. You can work yourself into another state of mind through various forms of meditation as well. Tribal dancers can work themselves into a religious frenzy through movement, coupled with auditory and visual stimulation. It's just a natural way of getting high on brain chemicals. Like any organ the brain can be imperfect and might affect some people without the usual triggers.
This.
Worship is its own entire issue, besides.
If you want to define the universe as God and become a pantheist, whatever, I honestly don't give a shit. I don't think it's a useful definition of "god," but that's just semantics—just like this tiresome argument about how atheists are not really atheists.
It's when you try to go from there to gods the Bible or the Quran or other religious texts that we start to have big problems. Are you arguing for the Christian god, Podly? Because that God is imaginary and fictional. He exists only in the sense that imaginary and fictional characters exist. The nature and extent of imaginary and fictional characters' existence is another debate entirely.
Limed for the first spark of truth to have emerged from 29 pages of nonsense.
If there is an effect by Being on a person or any other physical object should it be possible to measure that effect? Not nescessarily directly with human senses, humans are blind stupid to most of the universe as it is, but given the proper set of tools can this effect be measured?
I feel like I'm being ignored. What about religions that describe morality as a fundamental element of God? Christian theologists have been saying this for centuries. You can't remove one thing that is a supposed fundamental element of God, and then say that the rest matches your description, because you've just removed something that was vital to the description to begin with. Thus, I would think point number 1 has to be false.
Even if we did, that's a silly way to think about it. If no religion accepts your criteria as sufficient, then the fact that all of them accept your criteria as necessary in no way indicates that your criteria is sufficient.
Because, after all, while all ravens may be black, not all black things are ravens!
I'm not even sure the ideas reperesented by "Being" are truely nescessary. Actually, I know for a fact they are not in a number of real, historical religions but even in modern Christianity I don't think they are.
By which I mean, suppose you asked a self-identified Christian which sounds more like their God:
1) Jesus of Nazerith, who died for their sins and allows for human salvation.
2) An omnipresent, nameless, inhuman Being which sustains all things which exist.
Edit: And more to the point, what if you asked them if you still had all the Jesus and Salvation but got rid of the "Being" would it still be their God?
You're equivocating the universe with Being is a failure of identification. As I've said before, "Universe" is not reducible or synonymous to "Being." A universe is a set of things. Being is the Being of that set. You are also necessarily including all possible things, which doesn't seem like something you want to do, because even possible things have Being.
Luckily for me, as an existentialist, it doesn't matter if they existed or not, because I am free to reapporpiate my past!
If you can't do that, then you don't actually have an argument, you're just wrong.
Right, Pods?