Just to cut to the chase here, was that what DeGrasse said or Einstein? My quotes from Einstein reveal that he did “see” a god, but just not a personal one. I don’t like the word belief too much.
You can’t define if a human being is immortal or not until death, because you still don’t know. Possibilities.
Also these definitions don’t say anything of immortality?
So in other words nature. Yet I don’t define nature or reality as god, neither should anyone else so they don’t mix things up and confuse everyone else. Like they always do and is always fucking done. Just like they took away the genius from the Arabic a long time ago by shoving religion down their throats. That’s also what DeGrasse was talking about, being scared of losing our intelligence and wanting to discover new things due to people being coerced/scared by religion.
And yes, it was a quote from Einstein. Not just DeGrasse lying. He isn’t going to lie in front of 900 scientists and scholars. People here are just science and DeGrasse haters.
I don’t hate science and I’ve liked and admired DeGrasse Tyson since his mini-series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - which was utterly beautiful. I hung on every word and every image. How could anyone hate science?
I still think that Einstein “saw” some impersonal Something which is responsble for having created the universe[s] - he just couldn’t actually name it. He called himself an agnostic. I call myself an agnostic which doesn’t mean that i see nothing just that i can’t say what it is…
What? You, Artimas, can’t define what a god is (perhaps until your death). But you tried it - of course: falsely. The definition of “god(s)” is absolutely clear:
You tried to define “god(s)” in a new way, of course: falsely. See above.
Now you start the next error with the term “human beings”. That’s ridiculous. “Human beings” are very well defined and can be experienced too.
Human beings are mortal beings - by definition and by experience (a human can experience that e.g. one of the other humans is dead and conclude that all humans are mortal). Gods are no mortal beings - by definition. See above.
I forgot, you know gods personally and can define what they are because you know them.
A god is whatever we define it to be, hence which is why I don’t like when people define reality and nature as it. We created “god” and it’s definition because we have no other proof of what it is. You don’t know if it’s immortal or mortal and you also don’t know if we are mortal or immortal, physically perhaps, consciousness and energy, maybe not.
Anyone can define god, regardless of being dead because it’s a creation of humans to make them feel better. I also don’t even know what wiktionary is, but the definition I got off google just by typing in the word says nothing about immortality, that’s just another added on trait to a “God” to make it seem omnipotent when it really isn’t.
Just because something dies physically in a obvious physical world does not mean there is nothing happening in formlessness. No not heaven or hell. But if you haven’t noticed, in this physical world already of which we live. There are cycles, obvious ones and ones out in space as well. The logical conclusion is that there are also cycles in death as well, why wouldn’t there be when nearly everything is as we see it. Yes a human can experience in the physical aspect, and this makes you think you know the answers just because of this physical aspect? For all you know there is an entire other cycle going on. Which brings to the quote “As above ~ So Below”
Point B. You also don’t know that with knowledge and a long time later on if we could give ourselves immortality by fixing our aging/organic organs problem.
Human beings are not very well defined because they are constantly changing. You must be quick on your updating the definition of human then.
So did Isaac Newton. The unanswerable at the time is deemed “god did it” then someone else comes along and disproves or proves it.
Again: The definition of “god(s)” and the definition of “human being(s)” are very well defined.
So you are denying the generally accepted definition of “god(s)” and the definition of “human being(s)”, probably also of e.g. “earth”, “moon”, and “sun”. That means that you are a nihilist.
Are according to your “opinion” human beings at least living beings or does that also depend on the definition of “anyone”?
B.t.w. It was not you but me who told that there are cycles, especially spiral cycles, in the universe and in life:
You might need to define what it means “god did it”.
Is that religiously speaking or the scientific explanation apart from god.
Whenever a scientist… Including Isaac Newton and any one else reach a point where they cannot continue any further with their own work to solve the problem or reach a conclusion with science they answer it with “God did it” or “This must be the works of god.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLhaGGjfRw[/youtube]
Lengthier and better explained, the first like 14 mins perhaps.
Artimas,
How does anyone go about, in actuality, proving or disproving that God did anything?
You need to take the properties attributed to the god concept and analyze them. Can a being who made us be pure love and kindness? That’s one example.
this is so silly…these arguments are for the playground…the important issues of life have nothing to do with the “god concept”…where is the natural philosophy…how should we live…what kind of person do you want to be…
this is so silly…these arguments are for the playground…the important issues of life have nothing to do with the “god concept”…where is the natural philosophy…how should we live…what kind of person do you want to be…
[/quote]
When people say that God transcends human reason, they start to act as though they transcend human reason, and strap bombs on themselves and run into coffee shops. This is not a playground here.
Edit: Sorry, screwed up the quote function in this post, read the last one.
ec
You need to take the properties attributed to the god concept and analyze them. Can a being who made us be pure love and kindness? That’s one example.
[/quote]
turt
this is so silly…these arguments are for the playground…the important issues of life have nothing to do with the “god concept”…where is the natural philosophy…how should we live…what kind of person do you want to be…
[/quote]
ec
When people say that God transcends human reason, they start to act as though they transcend human reason, and strap bombs on themselves and run into coffee shops. This is not a playground here.
turt
people…will believe anything they want to believe…the problem is not the god concept…it is the people…and usually behavior can be explained in other ways like getting revenge…
Fo those that believe in God, blaming the horrors of existence is justified.
I think you will find, that for all other cases, people are attacking the belief in god and for failing to follow the logic that would justifiably point the finger at god, for the horrors of existence.
You are still hiding behind false logic by mischaracterising the argument.
turt
this is so silly…these arguments are for the playground…the important issues of life have nothing to do with the “god concept”…where is the natural philosophy…how should we live…what kind of person do you want to be…
[/quote]
ec
When people say that God transcends human reason, they start to act as though they transcend human reason, and strap bombs on themselves and run into coffee shops. This is not a playground here.
turt
people…will believe anything they want to believe…the problem is not the god concept…it is the people…and usually behavior can be explained in other ways like getting revenge…
Edit: Sorry, screwed up the quote function in this post, read the last one.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Revenge is one idea, the other is that you are being faithful to God, which many people believe. Revenge is irrational anyways, subduction is rational, but revenge is irrational.
Ecmandu, that’s a question, not a proof. And anything we attribute to a god would simply be from our own human mindset.
Why would a being who created us, even through evolution, have to be pure love and kindness?
We see pure love and kindness ~ we see apathy, cruelty, man’s inhumanity to man - so how can we possibly judge a personal god, based on seeing this? What we see is not ALL that there is.
Perhaps the reason many see god as pure love and kindness is because there is such a need and a hope for it and because some are also “seeing” from within. But it doesn’t make it so.
Ecmandu, that’s a question, not a proof. And anything we attribute to a god would simply be from our own human mindset.
Why would a being who created us, even through evolution, have to be pure love and kindness?
We see pure love and kindness ~ we see apathy, cruelty, man’s inhumanity to man - so how can we possibly judge a personal god, based on seeing this? What we see is not ALL that there is.
Perhaps the reason many see god as pure love and kindness is because there is such a need and a hope for it and because some are also “seeing” from within. But it doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]
As I said in the other thread about God, we can formulate the sentence, God created us but never existed. We know this is absurd, therefor, God is subject to human logic. So we can look at our lives and judge whether God is good or not, it’s interesting that the major religions say not to judge God, almost like a psychopath would say.
EDIT: NOT AGAIN!! I screwed up the quote function again!