An argument for the existence of God

[attofishpi]

Oh G thanks chaz.

You forgot the man in the moon

Woops forgot! But remember he can only be seen correctly in the southern hemisphere..





http://www.androcies.com[/quote]

[chaz wyman]

Oh G thanks chaz.

You forgot the man in the moon

Woops forgot! But remember he can only be seen correctly in the southern hemisphere..





http://www.androcies.com

[/quote]

And the face on Mars.

[attofishpi]

And the face on Mars.

You can't expect me to plagiarise!

[chaz wyman]

And the face on Mars.

You can't expect me to plagiarise!

I thought you were pretending that these were divine symbols?

[attofishpi]

And the face on Mars.

You can't expect me to plagiarise!

I thought you were pretending that these were divine symbols?

...was i?

[chaz wyman]

You can't expect me to plagiarise!

I thought you were pretending that these were divine symbols?

...was i?

Yes, that they were proof of god (or similar) and not simply proof of you!

[chaz wyman]

So.... an appropriate thread.


Yes. That is no kind of omniscience at all. What's the use of knowing everything is you don't how how to use that information?

Why have you placed such an artificial restriction on god?

You have reduced God to a dumb recording machine, knowing the past but not the future.

But think about it. If I do not know the future, I can't do anything. Even for me to act in the most basic way involves me in knowing something about the future, such as the next word I type. If I'm supposed to know everything now, then I cannot help but know the future. Your restriction is absurd. Why have you made it?

[attofishpi]

Lets define God as:-
1. All knowing (apart from the future).
2. Having the ability to judge and reincarnate 'souls'.

Yes. That is no kind of omniscience at all. What's the use of knowing everything is you don't how how to use that information?

Why have you placed such an artificial restriction on god?

You have reduced God to a dumb recording machine, knowing the past but not the future.

But think about it. If I do not know the future, I can't do anything. Even for me to act in the most basic way involves me in knowing something about the future, such as the next word I type. If I'm supposed to know everything now, then I cannot help but know the future. Your restriction is absurd. Why have you made it?

All knowing except in relation to the future is not restricting this entity from knowing the near future....i just dont beleive the entity would know ALL of the future.

[attofishpi]

Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

You mean in a hypothetical world where there was a Chaz that was not Chaz, would he think pantheism plausible.?
I don't know, I am not that Chaz, why not ask him?

For me to be that Chaz I would have to suspend some parts of my cognition and knowledge, and suspend my disbelief, making it plausible, in which case the answer would be yes, obviously. But as that would completely re-arrange and dismiss most of my knowledge and wisdom, I could not possibly answer that question.

[attofishpi]

Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

You mean in a hypothetical world where there was a Chaz that was not Chaz, would he think pantheism plausible.?
I don't know, I am not that Chaz, why not ask him?

For me to be that Chaz I would have to suspend some parts of my cognition and knowledge, and suspend my disbelief, making it plausible, in which case the answer would be yes, obviously. But as that would completely re-arrange and dismiss most of my knowledge and wisdom, I could not possibly answer that question.

Fair comment, apart from the dismissal of your cognition and what you already know.
Why do you consider panentheism implausible?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, in a hypothetical world where there is a Chaz that is theist, would he consider panentheism (not pantheism) as plausible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

You mean in a hypothetical world where there was a Chaz that was not Chaz, would he think pantheism plausible.?
I don't know, I am not that Chaz, why not ask him?

For me to be that Chaz I would have to suspend some parts of my cognition and knowledge, and suspend my disbelief, making it plausible, in which case the answer would be yes, obviously. But as that would completely re-arrange and dismiss most of my knowledge and wisdom, I could not possibly answer that question.

Fair comment, apart from the dismissal of your cognition and what you already know.
Why do you consider panentheism implausible?

If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.

The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.

[attofishpi]

If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.

The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.

Yes, the definition(s) that accompany such a complex 'theist philosophy' can appear to have contradictions. I still could not define with absolute certainty 'God', with my limited experience, but the various attributes of panentheism still permit it to remain (for me) the closest match.

[chaz wyman]

If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.

The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.

Yes, the definition(s) that accompany such a complex 'theist philosophy' can appear to have contradictions. I still could not define with absolute certainty 'God', with my limited experience, but the various attributes of panentheism still permit it to remain (for me) the closest match.

You are matching nothing with near nothing. What are you actually doing?

[attofishpi]

If you define it: you, at the same time refute it.
So you define it and you have the implausibility of it is the same words.
It's an idea that serves no purpose and answers no question; a solution without a problem.

The evidence seem to point to a world which changes and evolves by a material cause and effect. I can't see what this concept offers.

Yes, the definition(s) that accompany such a complex 'theist philosophy' can appear to have contradictions. I still could not define with absolute certainty 'God', with my limited experience, but the various attributes of panentheism still permit it to remain (for me) the closest match.

You are matching nothing with near nothing. What are you actually doing?

We will never be on the same page.
I have analysed 15 years of God's interaction with me and matched it to existing 'theist philosophy'...panentheism is the glove that fits.