Divine Exclusion?

[attofishpi]

Look at the previous page my point 2. A.I. 'God'...yes it is plausible that the technological singularity occurred aeons ago, we are in a simulation.

Gotcha. You are suggestive. I like that approach better too. Mostly.

Yes I thought you had an open mind. If you can be bothered, here is a link to my site in the deep end:- http://www.androcies.com/brd_reality1.html

BACK and NEXT are up the top - basically, I talk about the English language being a conduit of the systems logic that we are in, try to ignore the religious implications that might confront you.

[Lacewing]

You can't hide behind withering away the context with me Lace, there was no prior question...

Ah, I see you are correct that I did not ask it as a question. I said, "Power need not be a god." Then you said I didn't know what you meant by the "extent of power" (as if that makes any fucking difference at all), and so I asked "How does ANY EXTENT of power end up being a "god"?" What is the significant difference, other than one was in the form of a statement and one was in the form of a question. You could have responded the same to either.

If you wish to have a constructive argument where one of us, perchance may learn from the other then do the courtesy of quoting and comprehending what the other is talking about.

Follow your own advice. Oh, wait, you like it in question form: Why don't you follow your own advice?

What would you suggest can do all that Lacey if NOT a 3rd party intelligence.

NATURE. No 3rd party needed.

Of course, there have been and are a lot of people who are in contact with just as much "extent of power" and more, and they don't conclude it to be a 3rd party/god.

More power than what I have stated!!? Really! Great! GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY CONCLUDE IT TO BE.

NATURE. It is what is naturally possible, and a lot of people experience it.

So it seems reasonable to say that each person interprets their own experience. The experience is not a conclusion of anything.

No , not for you, someone with no experience of IT. How could one conclude on anything if they've had no experience of it?

What is it that you think I've had no experience of? It may not be your specific personal experience and conclusion, but each of the occurrences you listed are things I can relate to... and I did not conclude them to be a 3rd party/god. It is NATURE that "knows everything within your mind, has the ability to put thoughts into your mind..indeed control all synapses, has the ability to morph matter all around you". These occurrences are no different than NATURE as I know it to be. THE SAME WAY THAT THE REST OF LIFE/NATURE COMMUNICATES AND KNOWS HOW TO MOVE AND COOPERATE AND MORPH TOGETHER, WITHOUT OUR HUMAN WORDS AND THOUGHTS.

Can you see the logic in that? Why SHOULDN'T a person think it's NATURE? The nature of all being connected and moving together. A vast all-inclusive system of ONE.

The problem I have with you is that, unlike the intelligent atheists on the forum, you haven't the intelligence to question wisely someone that claims to know God\'God' exists.

Nah, that's not the problem you have with me -- you just like the way that sounds. I've asked you plenty of good questions in a respectful and careful manner... and you have skittered away into the shadows without answering them.

[attofishpi]

Waffle time. Stop wasting my electricity, you haven't the credentials for an intelligent debate.

[Lacewing]

(and you skittered away again)

Gee... WHO ELSE used to talk about "credentials"?