Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:00 am
Here is Age's definition of God.
You have to define what is 'spiritual sense'.
If I HAVE TO, then, for now, the 'spiritual sense' is '
that' what is invisible to the human eyes but is able to cause or create, and also 'that' what is in relation to when words like 'Spirit' or 'Spiritual' are used.
Thus your 'God' is a being [entity] that has agency to cause and create.
Yes. That is exactly what I had alluded to earlier.
Hang on, it was YOU who accused me and wrote;
If the above [my definition] are the only elements, then your definition of God is ridiculous.
Then you wrote:
Generally God, as defined by theists, is related to a being with agency.
To which I replied:
MY definition [of God] is related to a Being also.
But now you want to say and write:
This is what I had shown below.
Answer me this; Are you actually following what is going on here?
I have ALREADY replied to what you ACCUSED me of, and had shown, ages ago that you were WRONG, as MY definition of God is ALSO related to a Being. Yet you now want to say that 'this is what YOU had shown'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 am
So what? I am NOT a "theist" nor a "wikipedia". Some one asked for my definition of the word 'God'. I gave them MY definition.
Also, MY definition is related to a Being also.
Thus your 'God' is a Being [entity] that has agency to cause and create.
Yes, correct.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 amThroughout the evolution of the concept/idea of God, there are two main categories of God, i.e.
Not that it is of any importance to me, but I will read it, and reply.
But will you read, see, answer, and reply to this question: Who cares what has previously transpired throughout human evolution about 'God'? Those definitions, or far more accurately the perceived meanings and definitions behind those concepts/ideas has obviously not really gotten us anywhere peacefully, now has it?
This thread, which, by the way, YOU STARTED, is about MY definition for the word 'God', which is what I want to LOOK AT, and discuss, in THIS thread.
If you want to LOOK AT and discuss previous, or other, definitions of 'God', then go right ahead and START a thread about those ones.
Or, use those definitions to prove some thing. But to just keep re-mentioning them is NOT achieving any thing, especially when they are mentioned coming from a completely twisted and distorted concept from there real definition and meaning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 am- 1. The empirical conceptual God based on crude reason.
2. The God of Pure Reason
1. The empirical conceptual God based on crude reason.
From the early days of our primitive ancestors,
'you', veritas aequitas, when you wrote this are but just another one of OUR 'primitive ancestors.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 amthey believe in an empirical concept of God, i.e. God is viewed in terms of a larger agency in terms of the Sun, Moon, Mountains, the Bearded Man in the Sky, human-liked aliens in a Matrix state, and other empirical related concepts.
Such a concept of God is possible to be empirical real and possible.
It can be confirmed when theists bring the empirical evidence for verification.
But to date, no one has been able to bring any empirical evidence for empirical verification to prove their empirical-related God exists.[/quote]
Yet here I am giving you ALL the empirical evidence that I could must up for you, that is; thee whole Universe, Itself, for empirical verification to prove that MY emipiral-related God exists, which you can clearly observe and experience, well enough of It any way, yet you still insist that no one has been able to bring ANY empirical evidence.
This leads back to what I said earlier about 'you', veritas aequitas, that is; 'you' are a person who BELIEVES that they already know what the truth is, 'you' are completely blinded by your OWN beliefs that you are completely incapable of HEARING or SEEING any evidence at all, which is put before you that contradicts your OWN BELIEFS. As I sated earlier: Even the whole Universe could NOT provide enough evidence for you.
I am defining 'God' as ALL visible physical matter. You can use absolutely any or all pieces of these visible physical particles of matter to confirm what I say. Yet you can not see them.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 amWhatever is claimed to be empirically-based, it is empirically possible.
Thus an empirical-related God is empirically possible, but the empirical attributes given to such a God is near impossible to realize empirically, i.e. the possibility is 0.000000000...01%.
So, what you are more or less saying is: Any or ALL of the physical and visible matter that makes up the Universe, Itself, is NOT enough actual empirical evidence, for you, to realize empirically that 'THAT' is exactly what 'God' actually IS, correct?
Are you even aware of what MY definition for the word 'God' is?
You sure do NOT come across as though you do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:00 am2. The God of Pure Reason
After being cornered [a]theists and own doubts, theists the impossibility of an empirical-related-God and existential desperation, theists resorted to a God of Pure Reason, i.e. the ultimate ontological God defined as;
-
the real God is a Being than which no greater can be conceived.
Such a God is empty of any empirical elements but merely based on Pure Reason.
Note, in this case it not the conceptual God but God as an
idea* [empty of an empirical base] * = philosophical idea.
I have proven such a God is an impossibility to be real.
Such a God is a non-starter, thus 100% impossibility.
Yes I KNOW what your BELIEF is here. You have informed me enough times already.
I have also inferred that the ONLY person that you have proven that 'God is an impossibility to be real' is to YOU ONLY.
If anyone else agrees with YOUR logic and reasoning, then that is perfectly fine with me. But just continually saying that you have proven some thing, does NOT mean that you actually have proven any thing to any one other than your own self. For the True FACT IS you have NOT proven any such thing at all to me.
The ONLY thing that you are proving to me is just how illogical and irrational your beliefs and thinking REALLY ARE.